Why upset for European Civs?

[JFD]

Sweden was a natural choice. The number of times it has revolutionised the military, and defeated foes usually on the winning side (such as the HRE or Russia), makes it a very important military power. Then on the political side of things, it is often considered an example of the first pre-modern government. Sweden was one of the first countries to abolish Guilds, form Trade Unions, and allow women into government. Not to mention it has one of the highest standards of living in Europe and the world, and a beloved Princess and raunchy King. Sweden also invented Dynamite, Zippers, Temperature and Skype.

There may be too many European civs against non-European civs, but Sweden definitely deserves its spot regardless.

 

[PhilBowles]

Sweden was a natural choice. The number of times it has revolutionised the military, and defeated foes usually on the winning side (such as the HRE or Russia), makes it a very important military power. Then on the political side of things, it is often considered an example of the first pre-modern government. Sweden was one of the first countries to abolish Guilds, form Trade Unions, and allow women into government. Not to mention it has one of the highest standards of living in Europe and the world, and a beloved Princess and raunchy King. Sweden also invented Dynamite, Zippers, Temperature and Skype.

There may be too many European civs against non-European civs, but Sweden definitely deserves its spot regardless.

While this is fair enough, it misses the point of the issues people disappointed in Sweden's inclusion have - it's not that any individual modern territory has claims to some historical importance, it's that relatively speaking these contributions are deemed relatively minor or uninteresting compared with with alternatives from elsewhere in the world. Which you can't determine from listing a nation's achievements in isolation.

"Revolutionised the military"? The Swiss were famed for their pike-armed mercenaries, which were used throughout Europe. Should Switzerland be a civ?

"An example of the first pre-modern government"? Iceland has had the Althing, a model democratic council, for a millennium, making it the longest-lived democracy in the world. Should Iceland be a civ?

"Defeated foes usually on the winning side"? Politically at least, Leopold II of Belgium outfoxed Bismarck and the leaders of more important European powers to gain territorial concessions in the Congo denied to the rest of Europe, and played a formative role in the development of the modern DRC. Should Belgium be a civ?

Armenia was the first Christian country in the world. Should Armenia be a civ?

And so on and so forth. Take this approach and eventually everyone will deserve to be a civ...

 

[JFD]

While this is fair enough, it misses the point of the issues people disappointed in Sweden's inclusion have - it's not that any individual modern territory has claims to some historical importance, it's that relatively speaking these contributions are deemed relatively minor or uninteresting compared with with alternatives from elsewhere in the world. Which you can't determine from listing a nation's achievements in isolation.

While this is true, all of the civs you listed, and likely many that you haven't, don't fit so well as Sweden with this expansion. It is this synergy with the expansion that people are ignoring. I am merely saying that no one should be disappointed with Sweden before they are disappointed with the expansion and its theme. Although I'm sure that there are plenty of people who are disappointed that the expansion itself is so eurocentric, seeing as Sweden was the final civ released, and the eurocentricity of the expansion has only been accepted as sensible in hindsight, it is she that has received the backlash. I wasn't trying to say that Sweden deserved to be in civ more than X civ, because of X reason. I was merely dispelling the opinon of a few that Sweden has done nothing, and is but a neutral, unimagined country, and that for this expansion and its specific theme/s Sweden is a natural fit.

 

[Pangur Bán]

It takes a special form of parochialism to think that being a big power in central Europe for a century or so makes you one of the most important "civilizations" in history.

If you want a actual enduring power in central Europe, add Lithuania, or Poland, or Hungary. It's not even clear Sweden is a "civilization" in any meaningful sense, rather than simply a Scandinavian state powerful in the region for a few centuries; they'd be comparable to the Baltic pirate chiefdoms of the central middle ages rather than great powers like Lithuania, Poland or Hungary.

 

[Louis XXIV]

^

Except when nationalism kicks in, then it's "they shouldn't add so many European civs and how could they add these ones when X is still missing?"

I'm not really saying you're being nationalistic but the quote was still fairly fitting so I had to requote myself

That being said, I do agree that the significant powers of the Middle Ages are ignored. I sometimes think there's a tendency to think of Europe as in a Dark Ages. The only ones included are the ones still going strong in the Renaissance. Two exceptions come to mind, which I'm thankful for: Byzantium and Denmark (and I'm glad they decided to refer to their empire as opposed to just lumping all the groups together as "Vikings").

 

[Pangur Bán]

^




I'm not really saying you're being nationalistic but the quote was still fairly fitting so I had to requote myself

That being said, I do agree that the significant powers of the Middle Ages are ignored. I sometimes think there's a tendency to think of Europe as in a Dark Ages. The only ones included are the ones still going strong in the Renaissance. Two exceptions come to mind, which I'm thankful for: Byzantium and Denmark (and I'm glad they decided to refer to their empire as opposed to just lumping all the groups together as "Vikings").

Vikings is not a good name (you get Slavic "vikings" in Norse texts), but Scandinavians are not a group ignorantly lumped together by outsiders, they are genuinely a unit united in language and cultural outlook. Denmark actually ruled nearly all of Scandinavia in the 11th century, and in "unions" thereafter, so much so that the name "Denmark" was often used in English to refer to all of Scandinavia (and indeed that is what "Dane" meant). Breaking them down into modern nations is more ignorant than "lumping" them together. Historically, "Swedes" are just the people around Uppsala; the "Goths" to their south are not, historically, Swedes (though of course they are today).

 

[Louis XXIV]

While I agree, I think there's a massive cultural difference from the pre-Christian/early Christian "Norse" (of which Denmark was the most significant) and the Reformation era where Denmark and Sweden are substantially different and Sweden certain has very little resemblance to the group of peoples who were dominant in 900 AD.

 

[JFD]

Vikings is not a good name (you get Slavic "vikings" in Norse texts), but Scandinavians are not a group ignorantly lumped together by outsiders, they are genuinely a unit united in language and cultural outlook. Denmark actually ruled nearly all of Scandinavia in the 11th century, and in "unions" thereafter, so much so that the name "Denmark" was often used in English to refer to all of Scandinavia (and indeed that is what "Dane" meant). Breaking them down into modern nations is more ignorant than "lumping" them together. Historically, "Swedes" are just the people around Uppsala; the "Goths" to their south are not, historically, Swedes (though of course they are today).

Yes, and if it weren't for the fact that Sweden didn't like being ruled from Copenhagen, it would be appropriate to "lump" them together. Sweden went its own way for good reason.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I'm sure the people of Veii weren't all too happy about being ruled from Rome.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't think it's inappropriate to account for significant cultural differences, periods of time, and center of territory. Byzantium is usually considered different from Classical Rome for the same reason.

 

[JFD]

I'm sure the people of Veii weren't all too happy about being ruled from Rome.

They were neither contemporary, nor ultimately successful at becoming independant of Rome. The comparison to Sweden and Denmark isn't really appropriate.

 

[carm3]

I'm sure the people of Veii weren't all too happy about being ruled from Rome.

Comparing the Etruscans to Sweden is a bit much, at least from a gameplay perspective, and illustrates the problem with many of the more obscure civs that people want to see included: we know next to nothing about them, which is an issue not only for pragmatic reasons (coming up with UU/UB/UI/UA), but also more generally because it makes it more difficult for players to fit into any historical narrative. One of the most important aspects in assessing the inclusion of a particular civilization (in my opinion, at least) is their ability to be placed within a framework of documented and interesting historical events.

N.B. This is not meant as an argument against all of the proposals put forward, for many of which this criticism is not applicable, but just to the more esoteric civs that have been suggested.

 

[Domen]

14 / 34 = 43% - Fourty-three percent of all civilizations in the game are European.
Land area of Europe = 6.3% Land area of Earth
Population of Europe = 10% Global population

They are horribly over-represented, and this can be seen by playing a TSL Earth Map

Land area of the British Empire at greatest extent - 22.63% of land area of Earth
Land area of the Russian Empire at greatest extent - 15.31% of land area of Earth
Land area of the Spanish Empire at greatest extent - 13.43% of land area of Earth
Land area of the French Empire at greatest extent - 8.73% of land area of Earth
Land area of the Portuguese Empire at greatest extent - 6.98% of land area of Earth

And Britain, Russia, Spain, France and Portugal are all European states.

Population of Europe = 10% Global population

Today. But in 16th - 18th / 19th centuries it was much more than 10%.

And even in 13th - 14th centuries, before the Black Death, it was much more than 10%.

If you want a actual enduring power in central Europe, add Lithuania, or Poland, or Hungary.

Lithuania emerged as a power (and as a state, first of all) not before the 2nd half of 13th century, after the Mongol conquest of Rus.

Mindaugas was the first historical ruler of Lithuania - he united the Lithuanian tribes, founded a state and conquered Black Rus.

Poland, on the other hand, was a force to be reckoned with in this part of Europe already since mid-10th century.

And Hungary, or rather Hungarians - at that time still a nomadic tribe - invaded Central Europe in late 9th century.

 

[Pangur Bán]

They were neither contemporary, nor ultimately successful at becoming independant of Rome. The comparison to Sweden and Denmark isn't really appropriate.

Well, that's how it turned out. But we don't know how Sweden and Denmark will turn out, do we?

The only point being made there however is that preference for local rule is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I don't think it's inappropriate to account for significant cultural differences, periods of time, and center of territory. Byzantium is usually considered different from Classical Rome for the same reason.

Those differences don't exist between Sweden and Denmark.

 

[Domen]

Poland, on the other hand, was a force to be reckoned with in this part of Europe already since mid-10th century.

Rapid expansion of the Polan state into lands of other Polish / West Slavic tribes started already in the first half of 10th century, under the rules of Mieszko I's father - Siemomysl. That the expansion was done by conquest, is indicated by archaeological records - new gords of the Polan state ruled by Piast dynasty were built, old gords of local tribes show traces of conquest in this period, some of them were also rebuilt, or destroyed and replaced by new Piast gords.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Those differences don't exist between Sweden and Denmark.

What? Danish and Swedish Empire had totally different "time and place". Danes had their eyes on the West, Swedes on the other hand were more East -oriented Empire.

Danism Empire under Cnut the Great (1018–1035):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Knutrike.png

Swedish Empire in year1658:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/LocationSwedishEmpire.png

 

[Louis XXIV]

Those differences don't exist between Sweden and Denmark.

But they do between Medieval Denmark and Reformation Sweden.

 

[Domen]

What? Danish and Swedish Empire had totally different "time and place".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalmar_Union

 

[carm3]

Those differences don't exist between Sweden and Denmark.

I would disagree with that - given their leader, unique ability, and one of their unique units, I think it's pretty clear that the primary inspiration for the Denmark civ is the Viking age, even if they did draw from later history for the second unique unit. The Sweden civ, on the other hand, is based on the country from (approximately) the Thirty War period onwards. In light of that, I'd say they actually fulfil all of the points that were raised.

EDIT: Looks like lots of people already beat me to it .