One question that will probably come up is why I don’t include a separate Swedish civilization while proposing a split of the Vikings.
My reasoning is that civilizations in AoE2 should represent distinct historical military traditions, not simply every medieval kingdom that existed.
During the Viking Age, Scandinavia was still part of a shared Norse cultural and military sphere. Danes, Norwegians and Swedes all fought in broadly similar ways, built similar ships, worshipped the same gods before Christianization and spoke closely related languages. The differences certainly existed, but not to the extent that they necessarily justify three completely separate civilizations.
The Norse civilization represents Viking Age Scandinavia as a whole, but with a particular emphasis on the Norwegian Atlantic world: the exploration of Iceland, Greenland and Vinland, the great sea kings, the long-distance expeditions and the classic Viking warrior culture.
The Danes begin in that same Viking world but continue into the High and Late Middle Ages, representing the Kingdom of Denmark at its historical peak. They become a centralized Christian monarchy, dominate the Baltic, launch crusades, develop a stronger combined-arms military and ultimately lead the Kalmar Union. Their military identity becomes fundamentally different from the earlier Viking one.
Where do the Swedes fit into this?
Historically, medieval Sweden certainly became an important kingdom, particularly in the Baltic and later during the Early Modern period. However, within the AoE2 timeframe I don’t think Sweden develops a military identity distinct enough to justify an entirely separate civilization.
More importantly, I don’t think the Swedish contribution to the Viking Age should simply disappear—it should be represented where Swedish Vikings were historically most influential.
Unlike the Norwegians, who became famous for their Atlantic exploration, or the Danes, who evolved into a dominant medieval kingdom, many Swedish Vikings looked east. They travelled the great river systems of Eastern Europe, traded and settled among the East Slavs, helped shape the early Rus’ principalities, and many later entered Byzantine service as members of the famous Varangian Guard.
Because of that, I would rather represent the Swedish Viking legacy through other civilizations where it historically had its greatest impact.
For example, I would like to see a Rus noble/warrior unique unit for a future Ruthenian civilization as part of a broader split of the current Slavs into Ruthenians, Muscovites and Novgorodians. The early Rus’ elite was heavily influenced by Scandinavian Varangians, and this would acknowledge that heritage far more directly than simply creating a generic Swedish civilization.
Likewise, I would introduce a Varangian Guard unique unit for the Byzantines as a Castle Age unique unit. The Varangian Guard became one of the most famous elite formations in Byzantine history and was initially composed largely of Scandinavian warriors, many of them from Sweden and the wider eastern Viking world. That contribution deserves to be represented explicitly.
In fact, I would even go a step further and rework the Byzantine cavalry. Rather than the Cataphract remaining a Castle unique unit, I would make the Cataphract replace the Knight line, allowing it to evolve through the Stable like other cavalry lines while giving the Byzantines the Varangian Guard as their dedicated Castle unique unit. This better reflects the fact that cataphracts were a core element of Byzantine armies, while the Varangian Guard served as the emperor’s elite household infantry.
Personally, I think this design philosophy should be applied elsewhere as well. Rather than locking iconic historical cavalry behind Castles as unique units, some of them make more sense as regional replacements for the generic Knight line.
For example, I would advocate for the Boyar replacing the Knight line for the civilizations created from a future Slavs split (such as Ruthenians, Muscovites and possibly Novgorodians). Likewise, the Cataphract could replace the Knight line not only for the Byzantines but also for civilizations that historically fielded cataphract-style heavy cavalry, such as the Serbs, Bulgarians, and possibly even the Persians, depending on how their tech trees are ultimately evolve. That would allow Castle unique units to represent truly exceptional formations—such as the Varangian Guard—while regional heavy cavalry becomes part of each civilization’s standard military identity.
So, in my view, Sweden is not being ignored at all. Quite the opposite. Swedish history is actually being represented in the places where it mattered most historically:
- Through the shared Scandinavian Viking heritage represented by the Norse civilization.
- Through the Rus’ tradition in Eastern Europe.
- Through the Varangian Guard serving the Byzantine emperors.
That feels more authentic than trying to create a standalone Swedish civilization whose military identity would inevitably overlap heavily with the Norse and Danes.
For AoE2, I think two Scandinavian civilizations create a cleaner historical distinction than three:
- Norse = Viking Age Scandinavia, especially the Norwegian maritime world.
- Danes = Viking Age Denmark evolving into the medieval Scandinavian kingdom and Baltic powerhouse.
That gives us two civilizations with genuinely different identities instead of splitting Scandinavia simply according to modern national borders.
The same reasoning applies to Italy.
I don’t think every major Italian city-state needs to become its own civilization. Most northern Italian states shared many of the same military traditions: wealthy communes, professional mercenary armies, crossbow warfare, banking, commerce and urban republican politics. Their rivalries were often political and economic rather than representing fundamentally different military cultures.
For that reason, I think the existing Italians civilization should remain as an umbrella civilization representing the broader northern Italian city-state tradition: Genoa, Milan, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Mantua and many others.
It’s also worth pointing out that the current Italians civilization is already heavily inspired by Genoa. Its unique unit is the Genoese Crossbowman, one of the most famous mercenary missile troops of the Middle Ages. The civilization has strong naval and economic bonuses that fit Genoa’s reputation as a maritime and commercial republic, including its banking traditions. Even the civilization emblem is the Cross of Saint George, the historic flag of the Republic of Genoa rather than a generic symbol for medieval Italy.
In other words, Genoa is already strongly represented within the existing Italians civilization.
There is, however, one exception that I think genuinely merits its own civilization: Venice.
Venice was not simply another Italian city-state. It was arguably one of the most distinctive powers in medieval Europe.
Its identity rested on characteristics that no other Italian state combined to the same extent:
- A maritime republic built entirely around naval power.
- The dominant naval force of the eastern Mediterranean.
- A colonial empire stretching across the Adriatic, the Aegean and the eastern Mediterranean.
- Exceptional shipbuilding centred on the Arsenal.
- A military focused on protecting overseas commerce rather than controlling a large Italian hinterland.
- Constant rivalry with Byzantium, the Ottoman Empire and Genoa.
Its economy, diplomacy and military doctrine were fundamentally shaped by the sea in a way that Milan, Florence and the other northern Italian city-states simply were not.
Because of that, Venice developed a truly distinct military culture and strategic identity that can justify its own civilization both historically and in gameplay.
If there were ever to be another standalone civilization from northern Italy beyond Venice, I think the strongest candidate would actually be Milan, perhaps represented under a broader Lombards civilization. The Lombards possess a much longer historical identity stretching from the early medieval Lombard Kingdom through the powerful Duchy of Milan under the Visconti and Sforza dynasties. They could potentially justify their own military identity in the future, but personally I would consider that a much lower priority and something for much later down the line.
So my ideal Italian setup would be:
- Italians — an umbrella civilization representing the northern Italian communes and city-states in general, including Genoa, Milan, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Mantua and many others.
- Romans — primarily representing the Late Roman (Early Byzantine) Empire, as intended by the current DLC, but also serving as a perfectly reasonable stand-in for the Papal States and the city of Rome during the later medieval period, given the continuity of Rome as both a political and religious centre.
- Sicilians — representing the Siculo-Norman (Italo-Norman) Kingdom of Sicily and southern Italy, with its unique fusion of Norman, Lombard, Byzantine and Arab influences.
- Venetians — representing the maritime republic, naval superpower and overseas trading empire of Venice.
This keeps the number of civilizations reasonable while ensuring that each one represents a genuinely distinct military and historical tradition rather than simply another political state.
The current Italians civilization already captures much of the broader northern Italian military tradition while leaning heavily toward Genoa. Venice is distinctive enough to stand on its own, the Romans cover both the Late Roman legacy and, if desired, medieval Rome under the Papacy, while the Sicilians already provide excellent representation of the remarkable Norman kingdom that dominated southern Italy.
If, many years down the line, there were ever to be another civilization from the Italian peninsula, my choice would probably be a Lombards civilization centred on Milan and the legacy of Lombardy. However, I don’t think that is nearly as pressing as adding Venice. The existing Italians civilization already represents Genoa exceptionally well through the Genoese Crossbowman, its naval and commercial focus, its banking tradition, and even the Cross of Saint George—the historic Genoese banner—which serves as the civilization’s emblem.