1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

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

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by RobinHat, Sep 15, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. skyclad

    skyclad Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    488
    Ill be honest, the only reason I like christiania is because I dont think weed is a big deal. Its not worse than alcohol. But if I didnt smoke, and was for the legalization of cannabis, Id of course think they were doing the right thing shutting it down.
    I dont know how it is in denmark, but here ins weden, they brainwash us from a young age about drugs. Which you know, makes sense, they dont want people to grow up and be addicts. But our zero tolerance, you are a baby eating maffia supporting bible burning junkie policy for cannabis of all things, while everyone get so drunk they puke every weekend, really doesnt sit well with me.

    Ok that was really off topic sorry :mischief:
     
  2. Sian

    Sian Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,673
    when Christiania was 'free' it was only weed, cannabis and such rather 'weak' drugs ... nowadays its every kind of drugs running the whole gambit from Weed to LSD to ... yeah ... offtopic :p

    About the Dano-Nowegian Fleet then at some point back in 1500-1600 (starting with King Frederik II and countinued by Christian IV) the Fleet started a massive buildup and to keep control over the "sunds" and Keeping the Baltic Ocean safe
     
  3. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    Drug cartels? Organized crime? Clearly you have never been to Christiania... :rolleyes:
     
  4. Ninja2

    Ninja2 Great Engineer

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,142
    Location:
    Denmarkia
    You would know if I have been there how? And I guess those drug dealers just harvest the weed from their backyards, right? Don't be delusional...

    It's no coincidence the gang wars started after Pusher Street was cleared out. The Bikers had Christiania, the rest of Copenhagen (basically) belonged to the "foreign" gangs. After the Bikers lost their turf and marketplace, they tried moving into the rest of the city, that's why there's a war. It's perhaps not drug cartels a la South America, but it's definitely organized, and it's most certainly crime.
     
  5. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    The biker gangs had Christiania? Let me tell you something. I know several people who were put out of business and they all grew their own weed.
    There were definitely a lot who didn't, but the biker gangs had no hold over Christiania.
    I have spent loads of time there and apparently know it much better than you do.

    I am not delusional, but apparently you are blinded by your own moralist (borgerlige) values.

    Anyway... This is not a discussion about Christiania. Sorry to all for bringing this up.
     
  6. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    Do you honestly think Sweden had some kind of moral obligatioon to declare war on the Soviet Union when it attacked Finland in 1939? There was no defence pact or alliance between Sweden and Finland, and no other country in Europe declared war on the Soviet Union.

    I am sure the Swedish volunteers who died for Finland in that war would have been charmed by your appreciation of their sacrifice.

    Actually, Finns before 1809 felt as natural citizens of Sweden. They had the same rights and the same obligation,s and many of their representatives in the Swedish Diet were native Finnish-speakers. But that was a long time ago, and today Sweden and Finland owe each other exactly nothing.
     
  7. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    You must have met some highly unusual Skåningar. Most of us do not at all want to "come home" to a country our province belonged 350 years ago. In fact, I have never met anyone in my home province who would seriously want it to belong to Denmark. But there are weird people everywhere, so I suppose you may have met one or two.
     
  8. Loppan Torkel

    Loppan Torkel Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,756
    There's probably some way to interpret this sentence which would make our relationship to the Finns look good, but I just see "native Finnish-speakers in the Swedish diet"...:confused:
     
  9. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    Don't know if the are unusual in your eyes, but the movement does exist:
    http://www.danskskaanskforening.dk/ramme.htm

    I was invited to one of their rallies some years back at 'Skåneländska Flaggans Dag' outside Malmø. There were at least a couple of hundred people there.

    My impression was that even though the phrase 'Skåne hem til Danmark' was uttered many times, the general idea was to celebrate the shared culture and educate people to the fact that Skåne was Danish once. I doubt they actually literally want to be part of Denmark again (even though the beer would be cheaper ;) ).

    One elderly school teacher there told me that when he was a child, he learned in school that Skåne was a part of Sweden and had been conquered by Denmark under Christian I and then 'liberated' in 1658 by Carl X Gustav... Luckily, as far as I have gathered, children in Scanian schools are now learning the truth. Skåne was always Danish and was conquered by Sweden in 1658.
     
  10. bob rulz

    bob rulz Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    568
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    That's exactly what Scandinavia represented in Civ III. The Viking period.

    If you read the Civilopedia entry, it talks all about the Vikings. Their unique unit was the berserker. Their leader was Ragnar. The civilization itself was Scandinavia, but they were referred to as Vikings even in the game.
     
  11. Loppan Torkel

    Loppan Torkel Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,756
    "Always Danish"... you keep trying to skew the history. Why don't you just say something more accurate like "Since the Viking age when Denmark became kingdom, until 1658 large parts of Skåne was a part of Denmark."? What info do you have beyond that? Can you claim for a fact that Skåne, and all of Skåne, has been Danish for more than say 700 years?
    Also, those 700 years were including the first few hundred of years with a weak state, so it's like Skåne "effectively" only was under Danish rule for a few hundred years.
     
  12. Rubbaduck

    Rubbaduck Artificial waterfowl

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    217
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Well, if there existed this 'hard to exaggerate'-community between the two, I would definitely expect support, in the form of an ally, equipment or resources, not just allowing those who personally wish to come. And when was I disrespectful to the volunteers? And those 'natural citizens' would most likely be the descendants and relatives of the Swedish settlers on the western coast, who today are just as Finnish as everyone else, but back then the people were more culturally divided.

    And Germany did support us in many wars(And, mind you, I'm not pro-Nazi in any way), in many ways, I don't remember what it's form was in this particular one.

    My point wasn't that Sweden is a horrible oppressive evil empire that wants to see Finns suffer(And most certainly not to offend anyone), but that this communality that you speak of is -historically- quite one-sided.
     
  13. Öjevind Lång

    Öjevind Lång Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Messages:
    2,371
    OK - my response here turned into quite a lecture, but perhaps some people will find it useful. Here goes:

    The ethnic Swedes on the western (and southern) coasts of Finland were the descendants of Swedes who had made their homes there in the 12th and 13th centuries. Their descendants would have been surprised if someone had told them that they were not Finns. They regarded themselves as Finns, and they were regarded as Finns by others, because they lived in Finland. And like all Finns for six centuries, they also thought it "natural" that Finland was part of Sweden. You don't need to tell me it's very different now. In fact, the divide between ethnic Swedes and ethnic Finns in Finland is much *bigger* now than it was in older times, because of the rise of linguistic nationalism all over Europe in the 19th century. However, the main point to be made here is that people all over Finland elected representatives to the Swedish Diet. The representatives in the House of Farmers, the House of Burgesses and the House of Clergymen from Finnish-speaking areas were of course largely Finnish-speakers (unfailingly in the case of farmers from those areas), although they had to speak Swedish in the Diet, just the way Welsh MPs have to speak English in the British Parliament.

    The community between Finland and Sweden ended in 1809, when the country was conquered by Russia. Perhaps it would be more precise to say that the feeling of community gradually petered out during the 19th century, because of new political realities and also due to the emergence of Finnish linguistic nationalism, which was part of a general European trend. However, before that, for 600 years, Sweden and Finland did constitute one country, and there are no indications that the Finns had a problem with it, because linguistic nationalism had not yet been invented. Languages mattered, but they were not sacred the way they became in the 19th century. Incidentally, I was not the one who said that the community betwen Finns and Swedes prior to that was "hard to exaggerate", but the feeling of community existed. Such communities between people speaking different languages existed in many places.

    As for Germany "supporting Finland in many wars", that boils down to two instances where Germany and Finland were allies. The first one took place during the First World War. The Germans trained a batallion of Finns who fought against the Russians on the eastern front. Those Finns were hoping to participate in a German invasion of Finland which in its turn, they hoped, would lead to Finnish independence. Then in 1918 the Tsar of Russia was deposed and the Finnish Civil War broke out; it was a sort of parallel to the Russian Civil War, except that in Finland, the White side won. The Kaiser sent a German expeditionary force to assist the White side in the Finnish Civil war. (The Finnish volunteers also went home and became officers or NCOs on the White side.) The Germans weren't the only ones who liked to fight Bolshevism; the Americans, the French and the British all sent troops who fought the revolutionaries in Russia. It was a matter of capitalist countries wanting to quell a threatening development. Field Marshal Mannerheim, the Commander in Chief of the White Finnish forces, despised the Germans and objected against the request of the (White) Finnish provisional government that Germany send troops since he was convinced that the White Finns could beat the Red ones on their own. (He was also mindful of the reaction from the Western Powers.) In addition to the German regular troops there were also Swedish volunteers, some of them organized in a special brigade and others serving as officers - all that the Finns had by way of officers were the former members of that battalion which had served in the German army, some Finns who had served in the Russian army (like Mannerheim) and Swedish volunteers. Many of the Swedish volunteers were officers, because the Finnish Civil War was to a large extent a class war.

    The Entente opposing Germany (Britain, the US and France) were remarkably tolerant about the fact that Finland requested assistance from their enemy; but when some Finns after the end of the Civil War wanted to elect a German prince king of Finland, the reaction of the Entente can best be described as: "Now just wait a minute!" They were in the process of dethroning the Kaiser and did not wish to see his kin installed in Finland. Due to their protests and also, I belive, a certain lack of enthusiasm for the project among many Finns, the German prince did not become king of Finland; the country proclaimed itself a republic instead.

    Then in, 1939, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which gave Germany free hands against Poland and the Soviet Union free hands against Finland. The Swedish government, despite having no formal obligations towards the Finns, sent them enormous amounts of weapons and also monetary aid equivalent to Finnish government income during one fiscal year; in addition to that there were many Swedish volunteers. Finland had to sue for peace in 1940 and cede some of its territory. But when Nazi Germany broke its pact with Russia in 1941 and attacked it, Finland joined forces with the Nazis to recover the territory ceded to the Russians. There were some Swedish volunteers this time too, but they were materially fewer now since Finland had allied itself with the Nazis. The joint Finnish-German venture ended badly, of course. When the Finns were again beaten by the Russians (despite the presence of some German units on the Finnish front) in 1944 and sued for peace, one of the conditions the Russians made was that all German troops had to leave Finnish territory. The Germans, stationed in northern Finland, refused to leave peacefully. The retreated towards German-occupied Norway, and during the retreat, they burned down as many Finnish farm houses, villages and towns as they found the time for. The city of Rovaniemi was in flames. Most Finns are a bit less grateful to the Germans for their "help" than you appear to be

    You know, I'll share something amusing with you. I have a lot of Danish connections because I was born in Skåne and have lived there most of ym life, and so did many of my ancestors on my father's side; but my mother was from Finland. She was ethnically Swedish, but some of her ancestors were Finnish-speakers. The only Nordic peoples I don't have ties to (as far as I know) are the Norwegians and the Icelanders, though a half-brother of mine does have some Norwegian blood, and his Norwegian relatives has Icelandic relatives. My half-brother also has a Danish cousin who is not related to my Danish cousins. To make things really complicated, among my various ties to Denmark (including, as I said in an earlier post, a niece) there are Danish first cousins because one of the sisters of my Finnish mother married a Dane. However, one of the children of my Dane-marrying Finnish aunt moved to Skåne and had a daughter who now lives in Stockholm with her husband and children. We really have managed to cover all bases when it comes to the Nordic countries haven't we? Whether because of that or because I trained as a historian, I am not too fond of chauvinistic claims, or of flaming entire countries. The reality is alwys more complicated. This is mostly by way of being a general observation. :)

    To the guy who didn't want to think of Gustavus Adolphus as cultural: He made huge donations to the school system (especially the highee schools), which had taken a beating during the Reformation (implemented by his grandfather Gustavus Vasa) because the Crown stole most of the endowments of the schools, which were of course Catholic in those days. Gustavus Adolphus also founded the first university in Finland, the one in Åbo (Finnish name: Turku), and the first university in Estonia, the one in Tartu. Both exist to this day. There is a statue of Gustavus Adolphus in Tartu. So I think Gustavus Adolphus could very well by warlike and cultural.
     
  14. Rubbaduck

    Rubbaduck Artificial waterfowl

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    Messages:
    217
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    First of all, I don't really see us agreeing on this anytime soon. Let's just agree to disagree here and call it a day.

    Now regarding linguistic nationalism, I agree it certainly didn't as a concept exist until very recent times. However, there still were two very distinct and differing cultures in Finland and two rather clear-cut communities due to the different languages spoken within them. It might very well be that a national identity didn't exist within the Finns, but the fact is they were the ones that got the worst of it when the king of Sweden or Tsar of Russia(Or Novgorod) decided it's time to fight a war. Obviously part of the reason is location and strategy, but it would appear that Sweden was much more keen on keeping the Russians out of Sweden proper and on the eastern side of the gulf, than keeping Finland from getting occupied in the first place, and as I pointed out earlier there was never another conflict between the two after Finland was lost.

    Regarding your other points about the Germans supporting Finland, firstly I'm starting to get slightly irritated with these guilt-trips you keep dropping("Most Finns are a bit less grateful to the Germans for their "help" than you appear to be", "I am sure the Swedish volunteers who died for Finland in that war would have been charmed by your appreciation of their sacrifice"). The fact is that Germany supported Finland in the war of independence and in WWII. The Nazis screwed up their invasion of Russia and Finland was forced to drive them out. I don't appreciate them burning down Lapland but I can understand that suddenly breaking up an alliance and telling them to get out can get people a little upset(especially considering the epic trickery pulled off by president Ryti).

    Anyways, the point is they supported us, Sweden officially didn't, and were such community between the peoples to exist, which you now seem to deny as well, would they not have offered us at least some degree of support? It's pretty much the same old not wanting to get invaded by Russians(which is understandable), but letting one take the invaders you yourself fear head on by themselves certainly isn't a community, which I in this context view as an at least relatively equal-standing position.


    Still, to clarify my intention was not in to any extent to offend or 'flame' anyone, if someone should perceive it as such please forgive me. Also do take my points with a grain of salt since I'm working from memory here, and those memories are rooted in possibly biased (and ongoing)education and a mind filled with irony and sarcasm.
     
  15. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    Oh come on!

    With that logic you could also say that Sjælland and Jylland were also 'only effectively under Danish rule' before 1658. Skåne was just as much a part of Denmark as all those other parts.

    So what would you call it instead? Was Skåne independent? Was it a part of Sweden? NO! It was a part of Denmark just like Sjælland and Jylland - and it was conquered by Sweden in 1658.

    End of story!

    Now stop being so offended by historical facts!

    Sorry for getting angry again, but I hate when people say that I am lying or 'skewing historical facts'. I am sorry that you are offended by the idea that Skåne was a part of Denmark (not ruled by Denmark, not conquered by Denmark, but A PART of Denmark, just like Sjælland and Jylland) but it was! And after 1658 it was conquered by Sweden.
     
  16. Loppan Torkel

    Loppan Torkel Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,756
    :lol: The last part was just to make use of your argumentation techniques - being vague and insinuative to make a case for greater Danish history. "Effectively" is a good word to use because you're never really wrong...
    You claim that Skåne always had been Danish before 1658 and that it then was conquered by Sweden, and state it as a fact. I'm not arguing it wasn't conquered by Sweden then or that it for several hundred years before then was Danish, just that it "always" was Danish before that year. It's like when you bring up some loons that want Skåne to become a part of Denmark again. You keep bringing up selected and isolated, and sometime debated, facts that just point in the direction you want. And then when someone argue against these views you say they're historical facts and that those others are offended by them or blinded by patriotism.

    When you claim that Skåne always has been Danish before 1658, how far back does this "always" stretch? I know this could be seen as nitpicking, but since these vague generalizations you keep doing always seem to be so one-sided in benefit for a greater Danish history, I don't think it's sloppiness.
    When would you say Skåne was conquered by the Danes? I'm honestly curious.
     
  17. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    I wasn't conquered by the Danes. Okay let me rephrase:

    Skåne has been a part of Denmark as far back as anyone would use the term 'Denmark'. Sovereign nations are a relatively new term, but if you want to use the term 'Denmark' and 'nation', then I am right. Skåne has been a part of Denmark for as long as the country has existed.

    In fact, Skåne was a part of the Danish kingdom before Jutland was.

    Why are you claiming that Skåne wasn't a part of Denmark? You have nothing to back up your claim but wishful thinking.

    I suggest you ask a historian whether Skåne always was a part of Denmark before 1658 - ask a Swedish historian if you like. You might learn something.

    Oh dear oh dear... You are really stooping to low levels here. Go back and read my posts. I have never said that they want to be a part of Denmark again, but that they want to celebrate the cultural heritage between the two peoples.
     
  18. Loppan Torkel

    Loppan Torkel Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,756
    Then you're right?? You said "always". You mean you're now agreeing that it's not certain that's it's been Danish for a longer time than sometime in the Viking Age!?
    Also, it wasn't I who brought up the term Denmark. You were stating that Skåne always had been Danish and the Danes have existed for a longer period than the kingdom of Denmark. This claim that Skåne always has been Danish is pretty bold imo and such claims are often connected to some rightful ownership over a region.
    I didn't know that, if that's a fact. Do you got a year or a source?
    Where did I claim that? I'm questioning your your definite claims about uncertain facts.
    Aren't you a historian? I'll ask you, and I won't go back that far in history to make it more interesting - Was the whole Skåne a part of Denmark 500 AD? Was the whole Skåne Danish 500 AD? If so, are these claims certain facts?
    Then admittedly, you say you doubt that they really want back, but at the same time you can't help bu mention that the phrase "Skåne home to Denmark" was uttered several times, so maybe there's something to it in the end.... It's your way of displaying your "facts" that shows a lot of patriotic bias.
     
  19. RobinHat

    RobinHat Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Nowhere to be found
    I don't understand. What is it you are trying to prove here?
    Let's say, for example, that I was to ask you: "How long has Uppsala been a part of Sweden?". What would your answer be? Would you say that "Uppsala has been a part of Sweden since the early renaissance, when national boarders actually began to be more recognised, and the term 'nation' gradually emerged", or would you just say "Uppsala has always been a part of Sweden"?

    Skåne was a part of Denmark as far back as anyone can remember. They spoke Danish, they celebrated Danish traditions, they considered themselves loyal to Danish kings (who sometimes even ran the country from Lund in Skåne - which coincidentally was founded by Canute the Great, under the name Lynd Denemac 'London of Denmark')

    Since we are talking late Iron Age here, there is no definitive year or source, but it is believed that the first 'Danes' were related to the Goths and actually might have originated in Gotland and moved south to Skåne (although this of course is theory). The Danes and the Jutes fought many wars throughout the early and late Iron Age.

    Well the first thing we learnt at university was, that there is no such thing as a certain fact. Historical facts are established from archaelogical finds and sources. Reliable sources are determined based on situation and individual tesitmony, and a 'historical fact' is when two or more independent sources say the same thing. In truth, I am just surprised that you are so adament to question the fact that Skåne was Danish. One might even say that it was even more Danish than much of the rest of Denmark.

    If you believe that having a bachelor degree in history means that one is a historian, then yes, I am a historian. You are asking a difficult question here, because the concept of a sovereign nation didn't exist in 500 AD. You are talking about the Iron Age here, when Northern Europe was not much more than independent tribes and chiefdoms, so in that light no, Skåne was not 'a part of Denmark', but neither was Jylland or Sjælland - and Sweden did not exist either. However, the people who lived in the area now known as Skåne would have spoke the same language and shared culture and traditions - and alliances - as the ones in Sjælland and the islands, because they were the same people.

    If you want to move up to a time when the term 'Denmark' actually exists - say 850 AD, then yes. Skåne was a part of Denmark always.

    If you go back and look at the first time I brought this up, it was merely an amusing observation. I wasn't using it as part of any discussion or to 'prove' anything. The reason why I became stubborn about it was that you claimed that they must have been 'one or two strange loons' (or something like that), which I didn't get the impression was the truth.

    People sometimes have difficulty believing that Skåne was more Danish than Swedish, culturally, due to geography, but actually, the area just north of Skåne was covered by heavy forest for many years, effectively dividing the areas.

    Here is a map of nordic settlements during the late Roman Age, which clearly shows the link between the Danish isles and Skåne compared to Swedish settlements:

    Spoiler :
     
  20. Loppan Torkel

    Loppan Torkel Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    4,756
    I would just say that no one knows how early Uppsala, I guess you're meaning 'Old Uppsala', came to be, or who founded it. I'm not sure where or when Svearna became Svear. As far as I know it has been a Swedish town/city for the last 1000 years, not always, because I can't claim I know that.

    They spoke Danish and celebrated Danish traditions? Didn't the Scandinavian languages developed from a common source. Note that I'm not arguing the age when Canute ruled, Skåne was Danish at that time. If you look back at my posts, it's the time before the Viking age which I'm curious about.
    Although, I wonder - Was Skåne Swedish when Olof, Sigtrygg and Gnupa ruled from Hedeby?
    There are many myths and legends in that time, which is one of my points.
    It's as you say, national borders weren't set until much later and loyalties shifted. I'm questioning your certainty about facts in a time and place there's hardly any reliable material from. The Danes and Jutes fought many wars and the Danes might have migrated from some place named Gotland. When did they arrive to Skåne and what people lived there before? Is it possible to tell? Is it wise to make a historic claim that Skåne always has been Danish?
    Thank you, not much new info, but at least it's some progress. The earliest record about Skåne seems to be when Osfrid von Schonen followed the Danes in 811 AD to sign a peace treaty with Carl the Great. Nothing is mentioned of his title though or his relationship to the Danes.
    Which is basically what I said you should've written instead of making bold and unsupported claims, excluding the "always" claim since you're not sure of it.
    All right, I'll drop it.
    No such trouble here.
    It shows some vague settled regions, which might very well indicate a Danish rule over Skåne, but no year is given. In this map - Do you think that the Danes control all of Jutland too? Do you believe that Svearna are in control over region of Vänern and Vättern, or Gotland and Öland?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page