Historically, they’d be more likely to be known as the Norsemen, Northmen, or the Danes. Call them something like that.
9 Likes
Pretty much. I’m lowkey worried they’re just going to go with “Dane” because of some misguided fans. Though, “The Vikings” is definitely worse. Norse is really the word we should be looking at, it is how they would refer to themselves (Norseman, Northman, Nordmann). Scandinavian wouldn’t be right either.
4 Likes
I agree. Danes would be better, all encompassing and fit the entire time period. Vikings would be a great Variant which could focus on the early middle ages Viking era with more of a raiding vibe.
3 Likes
Vikings is how they are known in AoE2, as popular culture knows them, and they have a powerful name. Just as if the Aztecs were developed, they would not be called Mexicas because there is an element of nostalgia and marketing that matters.
5 Likes
This game doesn’t have umbrella civs, civs are meant to be specific kingdoms or dynasties and “the Vikings” are neither. So they have to pick one kingdom and develop it. I’d choose the Danes for that.
6 Likes
Indeed, it would be the same as calling the Japanese civ “The Samurai”.
8 Likes
It has variants, so the argument doesn’t hold water.
1 Like
If an element of nostalgia is required, why are the English not called the ‘Britons’ and the Indians for the Delhi Sultanate?
True, marketing matters, though with a super successful and active game which has pushed being historically in-touch than previous (current roster of civ names, the campaigns, the historical documentary-style footage), why not use the platform to give a more fitting, wider name of ‘The Danish’? The Danish covers (Danish) Viking Era onto their Christianization and then your more settled Kingdom of Denmark.
With this way it gives the Danes some much more (realistic) breadth. It also opens up legit Variant civs based on them - Danish Vikings, Norwegian Vikings (they were different!) etc.
Viking is a job role, not a broad, all-encompassing civ name.
1 Like
The term “English” is already a well-known name, and the Sultanate of Delhi does not represent all of India, far from it. In fact, several people criticized the fact that it was only Delhi and did not include the rest of India in any way. It is also not DLC, but part of the full game.
The history in the game is very good, but the name should have impact, recognition, and epicness when you hear it, even if it is not 100% accurate. All so that the DLC has impact.
1 Like
Variants are a different thing.
What’s the point of calling them Vikings when they end up representing a late medieval christian kingdom? It makes no sense and marketing isn’t an excuse. You can name them Danes officially and also call them Vikings in every trailer and post.
I second the motion.
Norse or Norhmen sounds better.
In Age of Mythology, they’re represented with the name Norse, not viking pantheon, “Norse”:
So, it’s already been confirmed that there would be Vikings, and since the Varangian-Swedish part is already covered by the Macedonian Dynasty, I suppose it’s time to represent the Danes and Norwegians in their Viking Age.
In fact, it was Ragnar Lodbrok who crowned himself king of Denmark and part of Sweden and began large-scale invasions against England and France, even sacking Paris.
Did anyone here watch Vikings? It was a great show.
On the other hand, Norsemen will later allow for easy release of variants from the late medieval period, such as Danish (Danish kingdom), Norwegian (Sagas bonuses), or even Swedish (with the Vasa rebellion at imperial).
1 Like
Maybe call them “Scandinavians” instead?
Scandinavians would be a better name than Vikings for them in AoE2, where civ names were traditionally broad ethnic groups. But in aoe4 civ names are specific political entities. It’s the “Delhi Sultanate”, not “India”. We have “Abbasids” and “Ayubbids”, not “Arabs", etc.
2 Likes
Norse is still too broad, it’s like calling the HRE Germans.
1 Like
Then how this “New” Civ is gonna be called?
Norse would include all of Scandanavia as well as Finland, Iceland, and the colonies in Greenland.
It may be broader and less defined, but allows more creative space for future content.
Factions like HRE, Delhi Sultanate, and Abbasid Caliphate bring up an interesting point, though I’m not certain if it would apply here. From what I understood about the region, there wasn’t a single ruling entity for 300-800 years like those civs represent. Closest I can think of would be the Kalmar Union (late in the period) and Kingdom of Jorvik (powerful and long lasting, but limited representation).
Of note: Danes being present in the Norman campaign is topical for the events that Anglo-Saxons experienced with Viking raids. While they established Danelaw and were referenced locally as Danes, the composition of their population was (mostly) from Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. So “Danes” would be woefully insufficient as a descriptor.
I think it would make more sense to refer to a people rather than a specific faction, like French/English/Chinese do, since there is a shift between ruling powers over the time period.
“Vikings” has much more theme attached to it than any other name. Maybe you can evolve the civ into Swedes, Danes, or whatever else while aging up, but I’d prefer they call them Vikings.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure it’s the opposite, where Viking describes a small part of the culture that it is derived from. It leaves very little to explore, where a “Viking” civ focuses almost entirely on their colonies and invasions.
It also doesn’t make a lot of sense for a game with historical context, referenced in the Louvre to chronicle an empire, to perpetuate misconceptions fueled by pop-culture.
I would say similar things if they gave us viking beserker units with horned helmets.
2 Likes
Calling them anything other than Vikings will waste a lot of marketing potential. There’s no way Danes sounds cooler than Vikings. Also, it’s wasting the potential to release variants for them, considering Vikings is an umbrella term for many countries that descend from them. Also, they better give us viking beserker units with horned helmets.
Viking civ is the marketing that they are doing. What they do for advertisement doesn’t need to be perfectly reflected in gameplay.
I don’t really understand why perpetuating stereotypes is more important than being historically accurate lol
Especially if the counter-argument is “it doesn’t have to be serious bro”… then the stakes are low and there’s no reason to die on the hill???
1 Like