This is basically the inspiration for how the Huskarl looks (they were noted to have round shields as well)
I see someone has been playing Age1 
How about a third unique tech? Even a low-powered Dark or Feudal tech would be a symbolic victory. The hunting dogs tech was originally ported from AoM, but not included seriously; if it was super cheap and available in Dark, it might work as a situational eco bonus. Either that, or a higher powered Arson replacement (Demolition/Ruination) that replaces their +1 attack vs buildings to +3 or +4.
It would be interesting for sure. The issues I see arising because of this are:
-It won’t help their early game at all, and won’t help them much in 1v1s. Going for a subpar paladin will be too resource intensive most of the time, and will not have the payoff of the cheap infantry bonus.
-While it will undoubtedly give them more options in Team Games, it doesn’t really address the comparative weakness of their infantry (although it helps with a couple of their counters, in taking out hand cannoneers and siege). Give Goths paladin, and they will still get mopped up by strong infantry civs (e.g. Japanese, Burmese, Slavs, Aztecs, etc), whose champions destroy all Goth infantry, and who will have no problem fielding beefy pikes/halbs against paladins.
-Just in terms of flavor, I don’t know that we need another paladin civ, especially one that was previously known almost exclusively for infantry. The Last Khans already gave us 3/4 new Paladin civs, 2 of which potentially have “better than perfect” paladins. By comparison, this makes the addition of a non FU paladin to Goths seem quite lackluster.
A question that should often be asked when considering balance changes for a civilization is “why would a player pick this civ?” For Goths, it always has been about the infantry flood, and the weakness of their infantry and eco right now is what should be buffed. Sure, having an archery range and stable are nice for some tactical flexibility, but I and many other Goth players try to minimize their use, with the exception of hussars for raiding in Imp. I’ve seen a fair amount of people propose buffs to the Goths’ stable, range, or siege workshop, but IMO none of those changes would make the Goths much more appealing. I’ve mentioned this in many other posts, but there are quite a few other civs that focus on “flexibility” and broad tech trees, but Goths have never been one of them. Bottom line is, I think cavalry line buffs are fixing something that isn’t broken, while ignoring what is broken. I see buffs like this as more of a weak consolation prize - “well, sorry your eco sucks and your infantry are mediocre, but wouldn’t you like this nice, shiny paladin?”
Any kind of military buff or incentive that is not directed towards the barracks I see as undermining the Goths’ infantry focus. The main point of the Anarchy is to (theoretically) make the barracks the only military building the Goth needs. Originally, their champs countered other champs (no longer the case), their pikes countered cav, and their huskarls countered infantry. I see no reason to change this dynamic, but rather to “make it okay again”.
I’m biased of course, but heck yes. It was a rather odd nerf in the first place, considering that they’ve gotten no improvements since AoC and were not OP even then. It was nerfed because of the fear of, you know, Goths being good at what they were supposed to be good at. It should make a comeback, and more unequivocally so if the Perfusion speed boost ever gets nerfed down to 80%.
Maybe, but who ever chooses a civ because “they’re okay?” Not this guy.
This is not a new strategy. This is the Goths’ bread and butter as soon as they can afford to do it. Obviously it was stronger when treadmill crane was around, and is still viable without it, but given the power creep since AoC, I see no evidence that giving it back to Goths would be overpowered.