Scandinavians/Norsemen/Vikings/Danes... Time to clear this up once and for all.

This is how I formulated it:

'Effectively' is the key word here. You've got to remember that Magnus was chosen as king by Danish and Norwegian lords. Harald rose in power in Norway quickly after returning from his travels, but never had any power over Denmark. The Danish lords did not choose Harald. Magnus was pressured into accepting joint rule with Harald very shortly before Magnus' own rule ended.

Another important thing that has not been mentioned, is that Harald actually allied himself with Svend during the initial Magnus-Svend conflict. Magnus, pressured by his own people, offered Harald the position of fellow king and Harald accepted. This only added to Danish resentment towards Harald after the death of Magnus.

If Harald had any power over Denmark he would have been king of Denmark after the death of Magnus, which he wasn't.
There is no doubt that Harald wanted to be king of Denmark too and he did invade Denmark after the death of Magnus - resulting in a terribly bloody war. One of Harald's reasons for laying waste to Denmark was to display Svend's inability to protect his own lands.

As you correcly pointed out, Harald wreaked havoc in Denmark the following years.

Denmark was still recovering from the void and political strife that arose after the death of Canute.

There is no doubt that Harald Hårderåde was a badass and a powerful king, but he never was king of Denmark. He simply wasn't! Saying that he was is a simplification that is far worse than those I have made and apologised for earlier in this thread.

He was definitely a great personality, and has rightly been called 'the last Viking'.

 

No apology is needed! I know you didn't claim the main body of invaders of Normandy were Norwegians. And of course the Danish stone in Faxe proves as little as the stone that the city of Ålesund gave to Rouen. But I still maintain that a chronicler in contact with the grandchildren of the founders of Normandy would be more reliable about their ethnic origin than an Icelander - with all veneration for the great skald Snorri, of course. Also, can you really imagine an army mostly made up of Danes accepting a Norwegian as their leader?

Mind you, if I were to learn, without a shadow of a doubt, that Rollo was actually a Norwegian, that would not darken my life in any way.

Scandinavia forever!

P. S. OK, so there was Tordenskjold, but he was not the supreme leader of the Danish armed forces.

 

I never said i wanted Norway in it, did i? And i have one more thing to tell you, the way you write on, not a good way. To me it seem's like you are a bit arrogant, and that kind of writing irritates me. The way you answered when i try to actually be some nice simply reminds me of an old, grumpy man.

And one more thing, i read throug the book again and found that it actually were Magnus who defeated Sweyn, not Hardraada, so you were right, but next time, try to give people a source where they can read it (and Wiki don't count)

 

How was I being arrogant in my reply to you?

I am only saying that you shouldn't let patriotic pride be more important than historical fact. You are also saying that you will 'boycott Civilization if Denmark gets a civ'. Why? How can this possibly affect you? Denmark was a great power in Northern Europe for many years, collecting tithes from England, Northern France and many other places. It is also the oldest kingdom in the world with great culture and the world's oldest flag.

What is your exact reason for not wanting Denmark to have a Civ?

Also, I never use wiki as a source for facts.

 

I would love to see a swedish AND a danish civ, even though its highly unlikely. I really think a scandinavian/vking/norsemen is the best we can hope for. There is certainly enough room for one norse civ, but two is really pushing it. And if only one, hehe they better not pick denmark cos I want to kick some catholic ass with Gustav II Adolf!

So a good compromise is a united civ even when it makes no sense, yes. Even if Denmark and Sweden were at war for 100s of years, we had Finland and the danish had norway, so if both our vassal states can suck it up then so should we.

I really like the idea of two leaders for a scandi civ, Knud and Gustav II Adolf (or Karl XII, I like civ to use leaders who are "characters" rather then just the most important/succesful ones. And inheriting a cold, dark, unfertile little land far up north, but having the best circumstances due to your kick ass dad and granddad, ad wasting it all by drafting half the country, going to war with russia and getting your ass kicked (ORLY), sieging a little town in norway and getting shot by one of your own for being such a massive idiot squandering the nations wealth and military, is pretty cool.) lol.

But two civs would be even cooler of course. If they were split, denmark could keep the berserker (renamed "viking" finally) and we could get Karoliner, Karl XII elite troops (grenadier/rifleman with 2 moves).

Obviously our favourite civics are heraditary rule (or I guess nationhood would make sense for Karl XII)

Traits... Imperialistic at least for both Swedish leaders, probably carisma for Gustav Adolf and agressive? for Karl XII. I dont know what the danish leaders should get.

Also I havent seen yet this suggestion, but what about kristian the great (danish version)/kristian the tyrant (swedish version) for a danish leader. Dont remember his full name or number... I think he captured Visby (Gotland) at least from us.

Now Im off to start a new game as Fredrik Reinfeldt of "Alliansens Sverige", I hope that brings an amusing imagine to mind in those who know him. The bald babyface adopting his position as a godking over the confucianist Sweden running state property. He realized before it was too late, socialism is the only way

 

No that it's going to happen, but I think Gustavus Adolphus, if Sweden were ever included in a game, should be militaristic and cultural. He and his chancellor, Count Axel Oxenstierna, did a lot for education and learning in Sweden, including Finland and Estonia, which were part of Sweden for a considerable time. (Finland was part of Sweden for over 600 years, and many great Swedish generals, administrators and writers were from Finland. The importance of this community between Sweden ad Finland is hard to exaggerate. Swedes and Finns were natural allies and were usually enemies of the Danes and Norwegians, despite the linguistic difference between Swedish and Finnish and the linguistic affinity between Sweden and Denmark-Norway.)

 

"militaristic"? Do you mean aggresive or imperialistic? cultural, no... Im sure he did a lot for our education, as well as gave his vassal state finland the knowledge of education ^^ but from what Ive heard, Karl X and Karl XI did more "inside" sweden, be it (civil)wars, infrastructure or education. Gustav II Adolfs biggest fame comes surely from his prowess as a general and commander, bad ass "lion from the north" look, and being a nice man in 17th centure sweden who actually played with his daughter. Cha and Imp?
Also wasnt he the king who ruled when the ship Vasa was built? At least scandinavians arent "seafaring" anymore like in civ 3

 

Just something that came to my mind.. I wouldn't call Finland a vassal state of Sweden at that time. Finland was part of Sweden. In CIV, wouldn't it add something to the game, if regions would have some kind of base-culture as well? When founding a new city, 100% of the population wouldn't automatically be of the founders culture, but barbarian. In Finland-Sweden -case, when Sweden would found a new city somewhere in Finland, the culture would be 20% swedish 80% barbarian(finnish)

And adding the rebellion / barbarians demand independence -events, depending on how well they are kept. Or something in that region.

 

That's a rather nice way to put it... Sweden controlled Finland. Not as a vassal state, but basically as a province whose job was to get occupied by the Russians instead of Sweden proper if and when the Swedes got their butts kicked by them(Sweden didn't get involved in any wars after losing Finland). The Finnish language wasn't recognized and the Finns were represented in the diet by Swedes. Now the Russians on the other hand...

 

hehe, maybe better for a scenario. and if you draft/remove defences from finland to go conquer, be prepared for russia to seize the opportunity!

 

Yes, wasnt that also that sort of the point of us getting involved in the 30 year war? To create a buffert around the baltic sea so we could get a warning if someone was cooking up trouble.
I always figured we oppressed finland pretty badly, even if I havent heard any specifics, thats always what I assume. But, then again, considering how they drafted, taxed, and treated the swedish commoners, what do you expect...

 

Yeah, I don't think there was much difference in standard of living whether you were peasant in Sweden proper or in Finland.

 

Well considering that the Scandinavian civ in Civ III referred to the Vikings, how is that not appropriate?

 

even if Seafaring made a return it would be reasonable to slab it on a Dano-Nowegian Empire ... They had one of europes strongest fleets till the two Bombings of Copenhagen back in early 1800's

 

my point was more that seafaring is a pretty crappy trait overall. and if any nordic civilization/vikings/scandinavians/whatever should get seafaring, surely it would be for their viking period (discovering america! and plundering europe from coast and river)

Ive never ever heard of any scandinavian country having a "strong fleet" in semi modern times... And definitely never heard of them being "one of the strongest". Not calling you a liar but I never heard of them as any real naval might, to be compared to the dutch, french, english or spanish for example.

EDIT: I forgot my original point... Vasa... Lol what a fiasco

 

I wouldn't say that the Danish fleet could match the fleets of the larger European powers.
The problem was that the Danish and Swedish fleets ground each other down throughout the renaissance age by being at war almost constantly.

Ironically, Denmark and Sweden have themselves (and each other) to blame for becoming second-rate nations (power-wise) in Europe. They have been at war with each other more times than any other two nations in the history of the world.

Although Denmark won a lot of these wars, Sweden won the ones that mattered and the balance of power finally broke Denmark's back when Sweden conquered Skåne (Scania) in 1658.
After this war, the Danish king Frederik III attempted to retake Skåne, but without success. It resulted in Sweden invading (and capturing) all of Denmark, except for Copenhagen in 1659. The Swedes suffered an overwhelming defeat and could not take Copenhagen, and when a Dutch fleet arrived to assist the Danes, they stopped their attack and pulled out of Denmark.

After the Battle of Copenhagen, the Swedes had suffered over 1000 casualties, and the Danes had only suffered 30.

After peace was declared, Skåneland was Swedish and Sweden was definitively the most powerful of the Scandinavian countries.

 

The thing is being drafted, taxed and treated like crap by foreign conqueror kings, not being drafted, taxed and treated like crap in general. Pretty much every medieval peasant had that, but it's very different for a Swede to pay taxes to the king of Sweden compared to a Finn paying them to the king of Sweden.

And additionaly, what do we get from our 'close neighbors' when the Soviets invade? Volunteers.


But it's pretty much the same old story, any king of any nation would've done the same. That's how things went back then, no hard feelings, but PLEASE don't call it a 'community'.

 

Thats what I figured, thanks for explaining. Our "feud" with denmark really was completely insane, I mean... Seriously. We were behind the other powerful european countries in almost anything (strategic location on the map, unfertile lands, short farming seasons, education, culture...)
Good thing we are finally friends!

And for the danish, Skåne... Its yours. We dont want it anymore, it was all a mistake. Now most of us support the campain, "gräv bort skåne" (dig away skåne)

Since you dont want Christiania anymore, we can take that plz!

 

LOL!

Yeah, Skåne is funny. I have met people from Skåne who are more patriotic Danes than Danish people are... 'Skåne hem til Danmark'.

As for Christiania... It is such a shame that our stupid USA-wannabe government decided to ruin it. All it did was ignite drug-gangs all over Copenhagen. We have never had so much gun-violence as we have now. It's awful...

 

Yes, it was much better to look the other way and allow the drug cartels to do their business in peace... drug wars are not pretty, but is tolerated organized crime even better?