Which New Civs should be in CIV V

[Camikaze]

Purple makes sense for Rome. Red makes sense for Japan, Russia and England (although they don't have it).

I've said it before and I'll say it again- put in as many civs as possible in the next game. There are definitely those that I would prefer over others, but in the interests of a whole heap of gameplay variations and satisfying everyone's individual wants, I think more is more.

 

[RobinHat]

I never understood why the Danish Empire is left out. There is a common misunderstanding that 'Vikings' were a united Empire, which couldn't be more wrong. It was the 'Danish' Empire For many years during the 11th Century Danish kings ruled a large part of Northern Europe as well as all of Greenland, and traded actively as far south as Egypt and Jerusalem.

Here is a pic of what this Empire looked like around 1050, consisting of Denmark, Norway, Scania, England, a large part of Scotland, Normandy, Faroe and Shetland Islands, Iceland and Greenland:

As you can see, it was pretty damn big! In Holy Roman texts as well as English communications and tales from the time, it is always referred to as the 'Danish' kingdom. Some kings that are worth mentioning are Knud den Store (Canute the Great), Svend Tveskæg (Svenn Forkbeard) and Harald Blaatand (sometimes translated as Harald Bluetooth, but actually meaning 'Blue King').

Just thought I'd mention it. I'm always so annoyed when the 'Vikings' are just thrown together in one big Civilization, especially since 'Viking' was never a term that was never used for the people.

'Viking' was not something you were, but rather something you did; to go viking translates roughly to go pirating or plundering.

This Empire ended with the Battle of Hastings in 1066 when the Normans (who, despite being Danish descendants - William the Conqueror's grandfather, Rollo was from Faxe in Denmark), had claimed large parts of northern France and invaded England.

Any thoughts?

 

[nutnut]

Damn right, seeing the term 'Viking Empire' on Civ 4 is an assault on my eyes.

 

[Weik]

The Danish Empire also included northern Germany and eastern Sweden

 

[Camikaze]

Denmark is probably higher on the list of civs that could be added to the game than most, but not high enough. I mean, it never was dominant, but just a middling player at times.

 

[RobinHat]

Denmark is probably higher on the list of civs that could be added to the game than most, but not high enough. I mean, it never was dominant, but just a middling player at times.

Indeed, but they still had a tremendous impact on European culture, and in my opinion they have far more right to be there than the Malinese or Native Americans.

 

[Tronicoz]

The Danish Empire also included northern Germany and eastern Sweden

man... u cant count denmark in the viking age, then swedish empire would be half russia
and norewgian empire in north america

 

[Camikaze]

Indeed, but they still had a tremendous impact on European culture, and in my opinion they have far more right to be there than the Malinese or Native Americans.

The argument for that is there, but Native Americans and Mali and in the game largely to fill geographical voids. There are no such voids in Europe.

 

[RobinHat]

man... u cant count denmark in the viking age, then swedish empire would be half russia
and norewgian empire in north america

Well, yes the Swedes certainly did carve out a part of Russia and the Baltic for themselves but they were never an international Empire to be reckoned with like the Danes were. Also, the Norwegian people at the time you are referring to were part of the Danish Empire (and were under Danish rule right up until the 19th Century).

Having said that, the Norwegian vikings never got a foothold in North America. They established a few settlements along the Newfoundland coast but they soon left again due to underestimating the native population.

The Danish Empire is just as eligible (if not more) as a civilization as many of the civs in the game.

Let's take the French as an example. The French Empire under Napoleon didn't last as long as the Danish Empire did, and what about the Germans? The closest they ever came to a true German Empire was under Hitler (unless you count the Holy Roman Empire, which was really just as French as it was German).

If you are going to add Mali, Zululand, Germany, France, Celts etc., then Denmark should have its place too. Not only was it the only noticable Nordic Empire, it is also the world's oldest kingdom.

Throwing all of Scandinavia together and calling them 'The Viking Empire' is lazy and silly.

So let's get the Danish Empire into Civ5!

 

[nutnut]

Well, yes the Swedes certainly did carve out a part of Russia and the Baltic for themselves but they were never an international Empire to be reckoned with like the Danes were. Also, the Norwegian people at the time you are referring to were part of the Danish Empire (and were under Danish rule right up until the 19th Century).

Having said that, the Norwegian vikings never got a foothold in North America. They established a few settlements along the Newfoundland coast but they soon left again due to underestimating the native population.

The Danish Empire is just as eligible (if not more) as a civilization as many of the civs in the game.

Let's take the French as an example. The French Empire under Napoleon didn't last as long as the Danish Empire did, and what about the Germans? The closest they ever came to a true German Empire was under Hitler (unless you count the Holy Roman Empire, which was really just as French as it was German).

If you are going to add Mali, Zululand, Germany, France, Celts etc., then Denmark should have its place too. Not only was it the only noticable Nordic Empire, it is also the world's oldest kingdom.

Throwing all of Scandinavia together and calling them 'The Viking Empire' is lazy and silly.

So let's get the Danish Empire into Civ5!

I think the Swedish Empire is a slghtly stronger contender. If it hadn't been for misinformation, Sweden might've been the most powerful nation in the world by now. They were poised to take over Russia (by which I mean St. Petersburg, Novgorod and Moscow) which would've resulted in the collapse of Russia. As it is around those three cities were most of the natural resources are, Sweden would've become a completely uncontested superpower in Europe. However, they were worried at the size of the Russian army, and that they'd be overwhelmed (failing to take into account that Russia had a huge army in order to hold down a huge amount of land).

 

[RobinHat]

I think the Swedish Empire is a slghtly stronger contender. If it hadn't been for misinformation, Sweden might've been the most powerful nation in the world by now. They were poised to take over Russia (by which I mean St. Petersburg, Novgorod and Moscow) which would've resulted in the collapse of Russia. As it is around those three cities were most of the natural resources are, Sweden would've become a completely uncontested superpower in Europe. However, they were worried at the size of the Russian army, and that they'd be overwhelmed (failing to take into account that Russia had a huge army in order to hold down a huge amount of land).

True, but you can't really add them as a contender based on what might have happened. Based on that logic, Denmark would have been the number 1 superpower in Europe if the Normans had lost the Battle of Hastings.

 

[nutnut]

True, but you can't really add them as a contender based on what might have happened. Based on that logic, Denmark would have been the number 1 superpower in Europe if the Normans had lost the Battle of Hastings.

Certainly not. Harold Godwinson defeated a powerful Scandinavian force at Stamford Bridge. The Danes wouldn't have been able to mobilise in time to take advantage of how tired his forces were. Reserves were also available, just unmobilised. And the Swedes were certainly powerful despite the fact they didn't invade Russia. They established one of the first colonies on mainland North America, their standing army was by far and away the best trained and equipped army in Europe. Gave Prussia hell in Pomerania.

 

[RobinHat]

Harold defeated Harald Hardraade, an independent Norwegian vassal king of the Danish Kingdom under Svend, Knud the Great's grandson. The last Danish king of England had died some years before the Norman invasion of England and had given the throne to his half-brother Edward the Confessor. He promised the throne to William the Bastard of Normandy but instead gave it to Harold Godwinson under pressure from his people, which in turn led up to the Battle of Hastings...

Anyway... the reason for 'abandoning' England was that Denmark was in internal political trouble at the time and the king decided to hand over Enland to his half-brother, who was Saxon. One thing that needs to be remembered here is that Hardeknud probably didn't see a destinction between Denmark and England. It was all his domain. He lived most of his life in England and is even buried there.

The ties between Denmark and England were not severed with the departure of the Danish kings. On the contrary. I have a history degree and actually gave a lecture on the Battle of Hastings a few years back. One thing I came across was a translation of a message delivered to William by one of his scouts reporting that Harold had 1000 Danish troops in his army. Many Danes lived in England at this time and they would have felt loyalty to Harold.

My point about Denmark being a superpower if the Normans lost comes from the fact that the Norman invasion effectively tore out the trade routes and economic heart of the Danish Empire. England was the jewel of the Danish Empire and there is even proof that Harold paid tribute to Denmark after becoming king.

If the Normans had lost, the Danes would have had huge political power in all of Europe for many years to come.

Sorry for going on like that.

 

[Hail]

then swedish empire would be half Russia

Sweden got owned by Peter in 1709.

 

[nutnut]

Sweden got owned by Peter in 1709.

And by Alexander Nevsky 500 years previously, but Sweden was still a strong power.

I quite like how Peter declared he would build a new city (St. Petersburg) and move his Capital there. When asked where he pointed to a location 20 miles inside Swedish territory.

 

[Camikaze]

Perhaps a field trip to World History would be called for?

 

[RobinHat]

Well, this is a thread discussing which new Civs should be added to Civ5 and why, so I don't see the point of continuing there.

I still believe the Danes to be among the strongest contenders for the very reasons stated above.

 

[Argetnyx]

Purple makes sense for Rome. Red makes sense for Japan, Russia and England (although they don't have it).

Look at almost any picture of the Roman Army, what color are they wearing?

I like the way Civ3 did it, there are two possible colors that a civ can have, depending on what other civs were there and their colors.

 

[Camikaze]

But purple is universally associated with Rome (or so I was aware); it is the colour of royalty and the Emperors. Red, OTOH, is undeniably associated with Russia, Japan and England. That has been the colour of those empires, whereas red is merely loosely associated with Rome, less so than purple.

 

[Gamemaster77]

My picks
America
Japan
China
England/Britain
Scandinavia(NOT VIKINGS)
Rome
Italy(Yes both)
Germany
Poland
Egypt
Aztecs
Inca
Maya
Iroquois
Sumerians
Persia
Iraq
France
Canada(Maybe)
Russia/Soviet Union



Everything I can think of at the moment