Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by RobinHat, Sep 15, 2009.
What about Roskilde? I would have thought that would be the main city in Denmark...
Roskilde (although certainly a Viking city) really only rose to power around the end of the 12th Century, about 150 years after the Viking Age ended.
It is really difficult to place a central Danish Viking city of power as there are several that might be used.
Jelling, Vordingborg, Roskilde, Ribe, Aarhus (Aros) and Ringsted all could be used in theory. Copenhagen is not a valid option though. It was not the main city of Denmark until the early renaissance at earliest (and even then it wasn't the capital). Vordingborg, Ringsted and Roskilde were the main cities of the Danish kings throughout the middle ages.
Aha, I should probably restrain my theory to cultures I'm actually familiar with
What about Iceland though? I vaguely remembering about Denmark brutally-enforced trading restrictions there. Seems to have been enough to give Bjork an axe to grind. She released a song some time ago called "declare independence" in which she exhorts Geenland and the Faroe islands to protect their language and throw off the yoke of the "damned colonists". I'm sure Denmark hasn't done anything to deserve such ravings though, at least not within living memory.
On reflection though, I would hazard a guess that Denmark's little empire, however it was treated, was never enough to shape the Danes' identity and create any post-imperial hangover.
Clearly, Björk knows nothing about history or politics. It is true that Denmark enforced trade restrictions in Iceland (although there was nothing brutal about it) in 1660, but there has never been an oppression of the Icelandic people.
Ironically, we have Denmark to thank for the preservation and continued use of the Greenlandic and Faroe languages, which are taught and studied in Danish universities as well as in the lands themselves.
The Faroe Islands and Greenland have their own parliaments but are still a part of the Danish kingdom. There are many talks about Greenland becoming an independent country - something I believe will happen in the future.
The Faroe Islands, on the other hand, generally have no interest in becoming completely independent. This is mainly due to the inescapable fact that the islands would never be able to support themselves as an independent country.
Regarding Danish colonial rule: It am of course duty-bound to mention that the danish colonies in the Atlantic and the North Sea were all originally Norwegian colonies that were kept by Denmark in the Treaty of Kiel and not given back after the independence It would of course have been an exercise in futility to do so, since they had been under Danish administration for the better part of 400 years.
Just as an aside, I remember reading an article where an historian pointed out the deep trauma the loss of Schleswig-Holstein in the war with Prussia in 1864 caused to the danish psyche. The loss apparently caused the Danish to abandon all aspirations of being a regional or colonial power. As far as I can recall, the historian proposed that this caused the Danish to reshape their national character to the hygge-culture of today, and might be the cause of the current hard-line anti-immigration stance taken the danish government
The Greenlanders have less than fond memories of Danish colonization and exploitaton, and Iceland did not exactly thrive under Danish rule either. In both cases, the countries suffered from the long-held monopoly on trade with those countries held by a succession of indifferent or incompetent Danish kings.
Does it say anywhere in the game that the Vikings represent Scandinavians? I don't think the Civ developers wanted to raise controversies by putting two distinct nations in the same pot.
Maybe Vikings represent exactly what they were - the people from the Middle Ages.
Also the name seems perfectly valid to me. It doesn't matter how the people call themselves (or weather 'viking' means something different in danish), it matters the name given to them by the other nations.
(Do you even know how the chinese call themselves?)
Hate to nitpick here, but what 'less than fond memories' are you referring to regarding Danish 'exploitation' of Greenland?
I think you've missed the point. I mean the Greeks called everyone outside Greece (including Romania) 'Barbars'... Does that make it alright to call a Romanian civilization 'Barbarians'?
Viking doesn't mean something different in Danish. Viking is an old Norse word. Fair and square. And the lands are not called 'Viking' lands today either, so your argument about China is not a good one either.
If Scandinavia/Denmark/Norway/Sweden were called 'Vikingland' by the English speaking world, I would have no problem, but it isn't and never has been.
The word 'Viking' was never a phrase used about the people itself, but specifically about the raiders. It is just as wrong as calling the English Empire the 'Redcoat Empire'.
And yes, I realise that Chinese use very different words for countries than the English speaking world does (hell, the Chinese word for Denmark means 'The Dutch Country', so someone has seriously misunderstood something...), but 'China' is the English word for it, and the game is in English.
Usually people call other nations/tribes as they call themselves. For the death of me, I just cannot remember any examples. And what people often callthemselves, roughly translates to "human". You can ask yourself, what would you call yourself if someone asks: "what is your tribe/people/nation?"
USA=I am American
Sweden=I am Swede
Somalia=I am Somali
Gypsy=I am romani
Viking=... actually, propably not viking
Scotland=I am Scott ("Oh, so you are british!")
I wouldn't mind, it's their language, they can use whatever word they want. Also I have no right to impose them to use the word I want.
Face it, the word 'viking' IS used today (in English) for the people that existed during medieval times. It doesn't matter if it's not historically/linguistically accurate, this is the word that spread into today's English, weather you like it or not.
So this seems and obvious choice of a word to use in Civ.
The Viking culture was called "the Scandinavian culture" in Civ III. That answers your first question in the affirmative.
I don't demand that people begin to call the Scandinavians "skandinaver" in English; I simply suggest Firaxis returns to using the correct and perfectly valid English term "Scandinavians." The Vikings came from all the Scandinavian countries. Everything clear now?
Robin Hat: the "less than fond memories" the Greenlanders retain of the Danish are due to phenomena known as colonialism and racism. I am sure you have heard of them.
Give me some examples of Danish colonialism and racism towards Greenlanders please. There must be some huge examples that would cause these terrible 'less than fond memories' - which I have never heard of, not even from my Greenlandic friends.
Sorry mate, but Denmark has always treated the native people of Greenland with respect. So much so, in fact that an American professor who gave a lecture at my university spoke of an article he had written years back about the unique situation of Denmark and its respect towards the cultures of the people of Greenland and Faroe Islands.
Having control over areas does not automatically make you imperialistic and racist.
I have been accused of glorifying Denmark. You are certainly doing your best to smear it as much as possible.
Quick question (since this is the highest concentration of Swedes/Norweigans/Danes I've seen) but is there some kind of axe to grind from Norway towards Russia? Just seems the last..couple of times I've talked to a Norweigan it always ends with them somehow bashing my country, never have figured out what we did to deserve such ill-feeling (I can understand the Fins, we have been dicks to them).
I would be wary of drawing conclusions on the attitudes of a whole nation based on conversations with a handful of people.
I'd say the general Norwegian attitude towards Russia is positive, even hopeful. Norway is the only neighboring country Russia never had a war with, IIRC, peaceful trade in the Northern areas stretch back several centuries, and the Soviet Union even liberated parts of Norway from the Germans in 1944. During the liberation the soldiers conducted themselves faultlessly towards civilians, and drew back over the border as soon as peace broke out, a scenario not repeated too often during WWII. There are many who still remember this.
I suspect negative feelings towards russians come from the kind of russians we are exposed to in Norway. Prostitutes, criminals and mail-order brides are sadly still more commonly encountered than people doing legitimate trade and tourism.
Personally I've read enough WWII literature to have a healthy respect for Russians and their patriotism, and I'm concerned about the rise of occidentalism, nationalism and totalitarianism over there.
I say this as a Norwegian who could actually see Russia from my house, sort of like Sarah Palin
Sorry, but I find that hard to believe.
I honestly don't care what you believe or don't believe.
And yes, I may have simplified a few things, which I have already explained and apologised for. Things are more complicated than I have presented them to be in some cases.
Having said that, Harald Haarderaade was nowhere near as powerful as everyone here seems to want him to be. He never matched the Danish kings of his time, who after the death of Canute certainly had political infighting.
If any Norwegian king should be profiled as a valid leader it should be Magnus the Good.
And although Norway was not under Danish rule throughout the Viking era (again, a simplification on my part), it certainly was under the rule of Danish kings for a large part of it.
And once again, I could not care less about what you believe or don't believe about me. Your detailed and convincing historical arguments and points aren't exactly breathtaking.
The thing about Harald Hardråde is not that he was the most powerful king of Norway, that honor might rather befall Magnus the Good or Håkon Håkonsson. The thing about Hardråde is that he was an all-around badass. He served as a captain in the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Emperor (where he is said to have killed the Emperor's bookkeeper while target practicing with his bow inside the imperial palace), he commanded Byzantine forces with distinction in campaigns in Sicily and Bulgaria, came home to Norway and set out to restore Canute the Greats North Sea empire by first kicking some serious Danish butt, and then foolishly invading England.
He's the epitome of the ruthless, adventurous Viking, with a cool name and memorable death to boot
Easy now! You're ad hominem attack is offensive, stupid and even more unwarranted than you can know. I am a native of an old Danish province (Skåne/Scania) which did not become Swedish until 1658, and some of my ancestors lived in the province prior to the Swedish conquest. I have been to Denmark more times than I can count. I have Danish cousins and a Danish niece (one of my brothers married a Dane and settled in Copenhagen.) And those are only my most recent ties to that country. I am not on a quest to smear Denmark, but you are most definitely on a quest to glorify it. I'd say that you are an excellent example of what George Orwell called "transferred nationalism"; he observed that transferred nationalism often permits the person engaged in it to make claims for the country whose "cause" he has adopted that he would never dream of making for his own because they are so over the top.
If you don't believe me about Danish colonial oppression, exploitation and racism in Greenland, I suggest you visit some Greenlandish websites. I'm not too impressed by you parading an American professor who visited Greenland as the ultimate authority on the matter. Colonial rule of Greenland aside, I merely observed that your claims about practically unbroken Danish rule of Norway from the Viking Age onwards until 1813 was wrong, and that Iceland suffered great economical harm under Danish rule because of the trade monopoly on Iceland held for a long time by incompetent or uninterested Danish kings.
I'm out of this discussion.
Another simplification? I'll just quote from Wikipedia: "The question of Rollo's Danish or Norwegian origins was a matter of heated dispute between Norwegian and Danish historians of the 19th and early 20th century, particularly in the run-up to Normandy's 1000-year-anniversary in 1911. Today, historians still disagree on this question, but most would now agree that a certain conclusion can never be reached."
I am chinese. We call ourselves "I am a person of the Middle Nation/Kingdom/State" or "I am Han People of the Middle nation". 'China' came from 'Qin' the first Emperor. If by what jst666 China should be Hania.
Civ IV did itself no favors by simplifying some states and complicating others... Who needs HRE AND Germany? Who needs Byzantine AND Rome? Although these are different, HRE is a confederation of states for most of the time except for about 200 years, Byzantine is a Romanic Greek offshoot that survived and prospered for some time. The Scandinavian Countries are like Spain/Portugal. They consider themselves separeate but live closeby and have similar, sometimes interwinned histories. There even was a Kalmar Union equivilent between Spain and Portugal.
I say we Split up Sweden and Norsemen. One represents the later glory, the other the earlier, and with all the strings attached.
Norsemen get Berserkets.
Sweden get some kind of Musketmen improvement. (10 str 1 first strike?)
Norsemen get Canute, Margarete, Harold and others that might fit.
Sweden get Gustav.
BTW, Kick HRE, make him German or French. (Or we can just have Culture groups with nations spliting off... Then we can have Franks migling with Gallic-Romans and eastern Franks mingling with the other Germanic Tribes)
Separate names with a comma.