5?
Shared units: Varangian Guard, Mounted Crossbowman
Saxon UU: Hearth Troop
Varangian UU: Jarl
Danes UU: Jomsviking
the longboat is already existed but will become a regional unit
2 Likes
Yes, rather than a longboat or longship, I would also like a new UU.
Well, if the purpose is to depict this civilization as the Scandinavian groups who went east, interacted with the peoples there, and eventually settled among them, then honestly Varangians is probably the most fitting name.
The majority of those who traveled east through the river systems into the lands of the Rus’ came from what is modern-day Sweden, especially the eastern Swedish regions. There is also the well-known theory that the name Rus’ itself may have an etymological connection to Roslagen in modern-day Uppland, Sweden, referring to the seafaring Scandinavians who traveled eastward. While the exact origin of the term is debated, the historical connection between eastern Swedish Scandinavians and the formation of the early Rus’ world is highly significant.
However, during this period they were not all considered “Swedes” in the modern national sense. The Viking Age and early medieval Scandinavian world was not organized around the modern nation-states we know today. These groups included Geats, Helsings, Jämtlanders, Danes, Jutes, and likely others from the broader Norse world. The modern concept of Swedish identity simply does not map perfectly onto this period.
This is why I think Varangians works better than Swedes if the intended focus is the eastern expansion. It represents the historical role and cultural sphere of those Scandinavians who traveled east as warriors, traders, settlers, and mercenaries, rather than trying to apply a modern national label to a much more complex medieval reality.
Personally, I do not think a dedicated Swedish civilization is the best fit for the AoE2 timeframe unless we eventually reach a roster size where almost every major historical identity can be represented. If we are discussing a realistic roster of 50-60, or even 80-100 civilizations, then I would not prioritize a Swedish civ for this particular timeframe, because there are already other Scandinavian identities that can represent those historical experiences more effectively.
This is not because Sweden was unimportant. Sweden was absolutely historically significant. The argument is simply about avoiding unnecessary overlap and making sure every civilization provides something distinct in terms of history, military identity, and gameplay.
The solution has always seemed fairly straightforward to me: rename and rework Vikings into Norse, representing the Viking Age Scandinavian world, especially the Norwegian sphere and their descendants in Iceland, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, and the wider North Atlantic.
Then have Danes represent the Danish sphere, including Danes and Jutes, from Viking Age expansion into Britain and Francia, all the way through the High Middle Ages as a Baltic power and eventually the dominant force of the Kalmar Union.
Finally, Varangians can represent the eastern Scandinavian expansion: the warriors, traders, and settlers who traveled the rivers of Eastern Europe, served in places such as the Byzantine Empire, and played a major role in the formation and development of the early Rus’ states.
I think this approach creates much clearer historical identities. Instead of having multiple civilizations that overlap heavily, each one represents a different Scandinavian experience:
- Norse → Viking Age Scandinavia and the North Atlantic world.
- Danes → Danish kingdom, western expansion, Baltic dominance, and later medieval power.
- Varangians → Eastern Scandinavian expansion, the Rus’ world, and Byzantine connections.
That gives AoE2 three civilizations with genuinely different historical narratives and gameplay possibilities rather than simply dividing modern Scandinavian countries.
Ultimately, the goal should not be to represent every modern nationality. The goal should be to represent the historical identities that create the most interesting stories, military systems, and gameplay experiences within the timeframe of the game.
2 Likes
The axeman is the same as existing scenario editor unit Norse Warrior. But Sword wielding one is new.
I was referring to the Swedish crusades against Novgorod in the 12th and 13th centuries, but I’m sure they’re saving it for later…
2 Likes
Yes, the Swedish crusades against Novgorod and the Finnic peoples are historically interesting, but I think they are sometimes presented with a much larger scale and importance than they actually had.
These were not massive Swedish imperial campaigns comparable to, for example, the Teutonic Order’s Northern Crusades or the Danish expansion in the Baltic. They were a series of smaller military expeditions, political conflicts, and attempts to expand influence in Finland and the eastern Baltic. The various Finnic groups inhabiting what is today Finland were also relatively small populations during this period and were not organized into large centralized states comparable to the major powers of medieval Europe.
That does not make them irrelevant. They are absolutely interesting historically and could make for good campaign material. But when discussing a standalone AoE2 civilization, the question is not whether something happened — almost everything happened somewhere in medieval history. The question is whether it represents a distinct civilization with a unique military system, political identity, and gameplay style.
This is where I think the Varangian/Danish/Norse division makes more sense for the AoE2 timeframe. The eastern Scandinavian expansion into the Rus’ world, the Varangian connection to Byzantium, the Danish Baltic sphere, and the Norwegian/Norse North Atlantic world all represent much broader historical phenomena with clearer gameplay identities.
A Swedish civilization becomes much more compelling in a later timeframe, especially with Gustavus Adolphus and the Swedish military reforms of the 17th century, but that is moving well beyond the traditional AoE2 period.
1 Like
I agree! I was thinking of the same thing. Especially Teutons.
1 Like
Yes, that’s true, that’s why I would go back further to Gustav Vasa in 1523 with the end of the Kalmar Union and the independence of Sweden…in AoE 3 Sweden is fine because it’s the Swedish Empire (1611-1721/1878) as such with its struggles with its neighbors…I’m referring to the previous post-Viking period (1100-1397) and post-Kalmar Union (1523-1611)…
1 Like
I thought the swordsmen are Men-at-Arms?
you are right that is interesting. in dutch and danish they are called the Saxons.
Let’s hope that mounted crossbowman is added to other older civilizations, it would be pretty ilogical and disappointing to only include that unit for Scandinavia for some reason
3 Likes
Maybe opening the gate to add Gunpowder Sweden as separate civ in the future…?
1 Like
I was hoping for this in this DLC or at least crusader Sweden.
We have now 3 civs representing early medieval skandinavia but 0 for late medical skandinavia.
2 Likes
You know, you’ve convinced me with this writeup.
2 Likes
Already featured in AoE3.
1 Like
The Danes should be that one civ.
New Torch
New Bush
New ? Mossy Rocks
New Snowy Rocks
New Wood Pillar
New Seaweed
New ? Tree
New Longship Wreckage
New Viking Weapon/Armor racks
11 Likes
Thule and Beo would’ve been more interesting to see alongside one Norseman variant civ
1 Like
Oh yeah. It is just MAA. So there is a possibility of regional upgrade of MAA.