Rename Civs

Please rename the large umbrella civs to the appropriate names that they are supposed to represent:

Indians into Rajputs
  • Agree
  • Disagree

0 voters

Slavs into Ruthenes
  • Agree
  • Disagree

0 voters

Italians into Lombards
  • Agree
  • Disagree

0 voters

Celts into Gaels
  • Agree
  • Disagree

0 voters

Malay into Javanese
  • Agree
  • Disagree

0 voters

Vikings into Norsemens
  • Agree
  • Disagree

0 voters

I think that, if we were to rename a civ, the only one that is not a cultural or ethnic group is Vikings, which is a job, and the only one that is reasoneable to change.

I am not opposed to changing Indians into Rajputs, if they make more Indian civs, but I also do not see the need for it.

It’s too late at this point. People will be confused.

I disagree with most of those, tho if they add more “Indian” civs they should change the name, right now… no
The only civs I would rename are Bulgarians to “Bulgars” (the medieval name) and maybe the Lithuanians to “Balts” (so they are more of an umbrella civ for all Baltic kingdoms and tribes)
Also the “The Aztecs” and “The Mayans” should be named “The Aztec” and “The Maya” as those are the actual plural words already
Also they could give the civs their endonyms, like calling the Persians “Iranians” but I think that would be too confusing


It is a little bit to late to change civs in my opinion. So disagree in all polls.

1 Like

i think celts can be named picts


Biggest question is, define Civilizations in the context of this game. If it’s just some random faction based on language then you’re right anything else is conjectural. Like in the instance of European civilizations, different language usually meant completely different culture and traditions. But in case of Indian civilizations the Rajputs and the Marathas may have had a different dialect but culturally they were more similar than different. So what else could be the motivation behind renaming civs in this game besides adding new ones and at this point it seems like an extremely bad idea. Think we already have a too many cooks situation and merging civs seems like a better idea than renaming/splitting/adding new ones. Just my opinion.

I think you forgot the biggest one, Britons–English, that’s something i would like to actually see in the game


The Aztecs and the Incas are an umbrella civilization similar to the Indians (I’m pretty sure that the Mayans too). Should the dev’s also need to rename them or introduce new meso civilizations in the game similar to the them?
It will be a never ending discussion
Feel happy about the new DLC and move on
It’s good that the game we care is recieving love and attention from the devs after so many years in the dark
It’s a new age for an age of empires

You seem to assume that the civs represent the umbrella civs well, and therefor they will represent the specific civs well too.
In some cases the former doesn’t apply (Celts as far as I have heard, no 1st hand knowledge), and in other cases the latter doesn’t follow (Slavs -> Rus as far as I have heard, again no 1st hand knowledge).

Could you provide arguments why these name changes would be accurate?

Sure, there you go.

Term Indians covers a wide range of Indic Civilizations.

In game we have a camel civilization with hindi voice set and prithviraj campaign which is the closest fit for rajputana.

Slavs cover a wide range of East European People.

In game slavs get russian voice set, russian wonder, orthodox unique tech, and civ icon. Ruthenians/Rus fits the best.


Italians cover the city states of the italian peninsula that speak italian language.

Since Sicilians have been introduced to represent south italy, it makes some sense to rename the north italians


Celts were a huge range of people that inhabited old europe in roman era which got replaced/evolved into other cultures. Celts mainly are of two types Gauls (inhabiting mainland europe) and Gaels (inhabiting the british isles)

Ingame celts cover mainly the scots under William Wallace as in their campaign,


Malay covers the culture developed in Malacca Peninsula
While ingame they represent Majapahit Empire based on Jawa island

Also Wikinger (literally warriors) a profession of sea faring raiders, it is no specific civilization name but used mostly for norse raiders.
The term norsemen might be more in line with other civilization names.

Some suggestions from others:

@StereoQuasar163 suggested Picts which basically another name for scottish

@bchuprynin suggested to change britons to change into english as british isle covers the complete island while the game mainly represeents the english longbowmen:

english are the red part the northern part is scots(celts)


Shouldnt Indians be mughals?

Norsemen sounds a bit weird, what about just “Norse”?


Yeah, just Norse would by far be the best option.


“Indians” is still an umbrella civ so before they introduce, say, Mughals, I see there is no need changing them.
Same for the “Italians” but since we have Sicilians it would be a good idea to change it to a narrower name.

The name for some early civs are quite odd, though. They are either too broad, or too specific while actually representing a much broader concept, or totally anachronistic, like “Britons”, “Vikings”, “Teutons”. The thing is that these are not even umbrella terms, some of them are referring to a very narrow group in a very narrow time period, but they are used to represent much more than that.

So besides Vikings -> Norse, I’d also suggest Britons -> English, Teutons -> Germans.


The Sicilians they are introducing are basically the Normans. They are just being called Sicilians so they can act as an umbrella, and cover Arab and Byzantine sicily too.

The design of the new “Sicilians” does not look any Arabian or Byzantine to me.
The game never really distinguished between “regions”, “civs that originated in a region” , or “civs that once occupied a region”. According the design logic of the campaigns, though, if one wants to represent “Byzantine” Sicily, that faction would be Byzantine.

Because it is the Normans, but the name is there to indicate an umbrella.

We already have Saracens and Byzantines anyway, if we want a truer version of what Sicily would be like under them.

That’s why I don’t think they can really represent Byzantine or Arabian Sicily. If you look at how regions/states/nations are represented in campaigns, the latter would just be represented as Byzantines or Saracens.

I agree, and I always wanted a Sicily-based Normans civ (which the devs seem to be giving me) but the name is still to keep the “umbrella” tradition taht other civs have.

Just like Burgundians have a Flemish UU and UT.