Expansion Pack Civs

[Gangerolf]

I kind of like "Vikings" better too, even though it's not as historically accurate. "Viking" comes with more brutal connotations, especially when you're fighting the English

[johnmcd]

There never has been a 'Viking' civilisation. Even most of the raiders would have looked down on the Viking groupings within them. They were despised and looked down on as brutal pirates. Norse is right.

I have met people who consider themselves Scandanavian though. Some people from the Orkneys and Faroe islands see themselves as belonging to greater Scandanavia rather than greater Britain.

[Alexander I]

Well, since the Norsemen went "I Viking," perhaps the civ could be called "Norse" and the UU could be the Viking.

I don't really care, as long as they aren't merely "Scandinavians." That's almost as bad as Call to Power's Native American civ.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
Zoid, you are wrong. More people use or are familiar with "Viking" than "Norse", but "Norse" is the proper name of the civilization. "Vikings" are the raiders.

You should read the sagas. You'll notice that "Viking" is pretty much synonymous with "pirate".

Well, that depends. doesn´t it? Norse is the english name, since they came from the north. In Greater Scandinavia they´re called "Vikings" Not Norse, or Nordmän as the translation is. There is no distinction made between "att gå i viking" (to go viking) and the civilization. But as I said earlier the vikings never called themselves vikings. It was only a name for a practice ie the raiding.

But since Civ4 is an international game, I could accept Norsemen as the name of the civ. But never Scandinavians

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Alexander01
Well, since the Norsemen went "I Viking," perhaps the civ could be called "Norse" and the UU could be the Viking.

Berserk is better

[Nikolai]

Zoid, you are wrong. A Viking was a man that was a black sheep in his home land(Norway, Denmark etc.), often a nithing, killer or otherwise brutal and antisocial person. I bet he would have been seen as a sosiopath or something in our days. He wasn't welcome in his home land and went out to kill, rape and generally wreak havoc. He was not a typical person from the North, he was an outsider.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Zoid


Berserk is better

It would indeed be a good name on a Norse/Viking UU. As would Viking be, but berserk might be a little better.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Zoid, you are wrong. A Viking was a man that was a black sheep in his home land(Norway, Denmark etc.), often a nithing, killer or otherwise brutal and antisocial person. I bet he would have been seen as a sosiopath or something in our days. He wasn't welcome in his home land and went out to kill, rape and generally wreak havoc. He was not a typical person from the North, he was an outsider.

Seriously, that´s such a stereotype. I expected a more balanced view from people who are actually descendants of vikings...

[Nikolai]

No, it's not a stereotype. It's the essence of what I read in a book made by a historian last year or the year before that. In modern times the Vikings have been glorified, but really they shouldn't be. It's a difference between Vikings and Norse traders for instance, while often you'll hear that the Vikings was mostly traders. That's bull****.

[Nikolai]

Zoid, I suspect you understand Norwegian(you're Sewdish AFAIR?), so if you want you can read this article about the book, it also have an interview with its author.

[Zoid]

Nikolai, the common view of vikings (at least in Sweden) is not that grim. The swedish vikings (varjager/varingians) founded Russia and went all the way to Konstantinopel. There the vikings had very good reputation.

Just because some historian decides to "expose" the vikings doesn´t make it true...

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Nikolai
Zoid, I suspect you understand Norwegian(you're Sewdish AFAIR?), so if you want you can read this article about the book, it also have an interview with its author.

I don´t know who this Yngvar Ustvedt is or where he´s coming from, but obviously he´s very anti-viking. His claim that vikings were the football hooligans of their time seems utterly biased as it conveniently "forgets" the other 99% of the vikings. This is not academically correct. In the Q and A that follows the Aftenposten article Ustvedt also makes a bleak appearance. His only defence for his central thesis is that Snorre and Saxo Grammaticus wrote about people (other vikings) who had been harassed by vikings at some point or other. Firstly, we don´t know how many people Snorre and Saxo referred to and secondly, Snorre and Saxo wrote their stories (not history as such!) some 200 years after the end of the viking era!

To have this as a support for a central thesis is just lame

[Imran Siddiqui]

Here is what wikipedia has the say about the issue (though obviously it is not the final authority)

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

The name Viking is a loanword from the native Scandinavian term for the Norse warriors who raided the coasts of Scandinavia, the British Isles, and other parts of Europe from the late 8th century to the 11th century. Vikings traveled to the west and Varangians, who were best known as the Varangian Guards of the Byzantine emperors, to the east. This period of European history (generally dated to AD 793 - AD 1066) is often referred to as the Viking Age.

The word “Viking” was introduced to the English language with romantic connotations in the 18th century. Today, somewhat controversially, the word is also used as a generic adjective, referring to the Viking Age Scandinavians. The medieval Scandinavian population, in general, is more properly referred to as Norse.

The etymology of "Viking" is somewhat vague. One path might be from the Old Norse word, vík, meaning "bay," "creek," or "inlet," and the suffix -ing, meaning "coming from" or "belonging to." Thus, viking would be a 'person of the bay', or "bayling" for lack of a better word. In Old Norse, this would be spelled vikingr. Later on, the term, viking, became synonymous with "naval expedition" or "naval raid", and a vikingr was a member of such expeditions. A second etymology suggested that the term is derived from Old English, wíc, ie. "trading city" (cognate to Latin vicus, "village").

The word viking appears on several rune stones found in Scandinavia. In the Icelandic sagas, víking refers to an overseas expedition (Old Norse farar i vikingr "to go on an expedition"), and víkingr, to a seaman or warrior taking part in such an expedition. In Old English, the word wicing appears first in the 6th or 7th century in the Anglo-Saxon poem, “Widsith.”

In medieval use (eg. Widsith, and the writings of Adam von Bremen), a viking is a pirate, and not a name for the people or culture in general. Indeed, when Scandinavian raiders left their boats, stole horses and rode across country, they were never referred to as "vikings" in English sources.

The word disappeared in Middle English, and was reintroduced as viking during 18th century Romanticism. During the 20th century, the meaning of the term was expanded to refer not only to the raiders, but also to the entire period; it is now, somewhat confusingly, used as a noun both in the original meaning of raiders, warriors or navigators, and sometimes to refer to the Scandinavian population in general. As an adjective, the word is used in expressions like "Viking age," "Viking culture," "Viking colony," etc., generally referring to medieval Scandinavia.

During the last century, speculations began about whether foreign traders, known as varyags who had trade posts along the Russian rivers down to the Byzantine Empire were of Scandinavian origin, and since then, the term has been interpreted also to refer to tradesmen from Scandinavia who established colonies in Russia. Early Scandinavian colonies in North America are also labelled as "Viking" by modern English speakers. It should be noted, however, that no written sources, in the cases of Vinland, Rus', or Varyags, use the term "Viking."

Scandinavians, in general, were not Vikings. They were farmers, fishers and hunters, as were most other people in Europe at the time. As the Scandinavian shores were attacked by enemy forces, they established the defence fleet called leidang, which was also used as protection against Vikings. Though a common practice today, calling all northmen (Scandinavians) Vikings, rather than reserving the word solely for those involved in piracy, can lead to misunderstanding and confusion. As members of the leidang fleet, as well as farmers and fishers now and then, were attacked by Vikings, most Scandinavians probably saw Vikings as their enemies and fought against them with all their might.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Zoid
Nikolai, the common view of vikings (at least in Sweden) is not that grim. The swedish vikings (varjager/varingians) founded Russia and went all the way to Konstantinopel. There the vikings had very good reputation.

Just because some historian decides to "expose" the vikings doesn´t make it true...

The Rus was the exception to the rule of Vikings as mainly raiders. To an extent. Also there there was raiding involved. Additionally, saying that 99% of the Vikings weren't raiders, as you say, is completely wrong. The Vikings may not have been just as bad as the people experiencing them claimed, but they were by no means much good either. They were raiders, and firstly that. But they did make some good accomplishments after they begun settling down in the places they attacked.

[Alexander I]

Goodness! I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with Imran on anything, yet here it is!