It will likely cover the period from the 8th to the 10th centuries, when the Vikings were active in earnest, up to the 16th century when the Kalmar Union dissolved. What would be the appropriate name for this civilization? Denmark? Norse? It is certain that they won’t use the name Viking exactly as it is.
It just occurred to me that Kalmar Union could appear as a variant civilization at future. Like KT, they could select and use unit types from each Nordic nation.
It appears they are using ‘Viking’ as the official name for the new civ. I agree with the idea that it isn’t sufficient, but this is what they have so far on the Steam storepage:
The Vikings: Relentless Momentum
The Vikings enter the battlefield with a reputation built on speed, aggression, and adaptability. Their early game is defined by powerful melee infantry and decisive raiding that rewards bold action. Every successful strike against an enemy economy fuels your own, turning early pressure into sustained dominance.
At the center of Viking society stands the Longhouse. More than a structure, it anchors a resilient economy that grows with your people. Through Northern Migration, your population trains for free, allowing you to focus on strategy, expansion, and control of the map.
As the match unfolds, the Viking identity evolves. The transition beyond the Viking Age introduces Knights and Militia Crossbowmen reflecting the rise of organized Scandinavian kingdoms. Their approach adapts, but their core remains. Relentless infantry, strong map control, and the ability to dictate the pace of battle.
Their legacy is carried forward through Heroic Sagas. Great deeds unlock powerful bonuses that shape your strategy and reinforce your momentum. Sacred Groves extend their influence, securing key locations while empowering nearby forces.
Any differentiation made between Vikings (a job, not a name of any recognized civilization in history mind you) and the nations they come from is done through the commentary on their evolution through the ages (identified as ‘Scandanavian kingdoms’). The devs are recognizing that the Vikings only existed during the Viking age, but are insisting on labeling the entire civ that way through the concept of legacy and inheritance.
On a historical note: the ‘Vikings’ never referred to themselves that way. It is definitively an action (to go a-viking) or a job (their villagers, leaders, farmers, blacksmiths who stayed home would not have been called ‘Viking’). Norsemen, Danes, Swedes would all be terms used.
Under the condition that this faction strictly represents the colonizing force of vikings that settled new lands, then yeah… but it is a pretty strict category.
It appears the mythical pop-culture understanding of history supersedes reality in many cases for this game.
Yeah, they chose the name Vikings.
For the description, we’re going to have the Vikings of the Viking Age (800-1000) as they transition to forming Christian kingdoms (Denmark, Norweign, Swiss), and thus gain Knights and crossbowmen in either the Castle Age or the Imperial Age (it’s not clear which). Their wonder, a Big Wodden Church, reflex that change.
It seems they won’t have landmarks, but will advance to the next age with something else, I suppose, or Edicts (like the Golden Horde).
Unique Units Confirmed:
Berserker.- with 2 axes. I suppose a light infantry raider.
Huskarl.- Their heavy infantry, I suppose.
Shield Maiden.- Javelin Thrower female warrior with a shield, I suppose it replaces the role of Horseman, because Vikings don’t have cavalry until Age III, I suppose.
Unique Buildings confirmed: Communal House (Longhouse), Ring Fortress (Trelleborg)
Wonder: Giant Wooden Church
this is just false. The vikings are a widely recognized civilization. The issue is that the vikings were only a civilization for a few centuries before they evolved into a variety of different kingdoms with a major shift in their cultures.
true. But the same is true for most aoe civs. “Vikings” is the correct term for the people depicted though.
this is not how the word is used in modern English.
It is common, even in scientific context, to refer to not just the raiders, but the inhabitants of the homelands as “vikings”.
There is no historical evidence of a civilization named ‘Viking’. If there was it would be very simple to pull articles or studies on it.
Viking is the name of a job. It would be the same as naming a civilization “The Pirates” or “The Samurai”. It sticks, and I understand why they made the decision, but it was not made because of historicity. It is style over substance.
One of the bigger reasons to have an appropriate naming convention is to not add onto the ever growing pile of misinformation related to the Norse culture. It is common in the 20th and 21st centuries to see dramatized depictions of this culture.
To some, the ‘coolness’ of the idea of a Viking is more important than the culture and history it is derived from. Many complaints about this game come in the form of it having a fantastical depiction of history. There is a core group of fans that want realism in the design.
More than just a name, we will have droves of half naked animal pelt wearing dual axe wielding berserkers on the battlefield. Very cool, but not realistic. They existed in history, but were extremely rare…
I don’t necessarily have a problem with fantasy in AoE. The viking fantasy is fun to role play as. It does, however, stand out as yet another design choice that makes AoE more fantasy than history.
I didn’t know the Steam store page was open. I’ll have to check it out.
I knew that ‘Viking’ meant sailor as an occupation, but I didn’t know it could be used as a verb like that. Just like how ‘Seafarer’ is used in the form ‘seafaring’ in English.
Still, I think it would have been better if they had used a civilization name that encompassed both the Vikings and the later Scandinavian kingdoms instead.
Viking means pirate. It was an insult the Anglo-Saxon Britons used to refer to them because of all their raids. When they learned they came from the legendary island of Skanda, they also called them Norsmen.
But this term become popular, even for the same Scandinavian people who refer to the “Viking period” of their own countries.
I remember there were two threads discussing whether the name Viking was appropriate or not. They were certainly popular at the time.
I also recall that there were certain points of consensus among the people:
1) Viking barbaric civilization If the civilization was going to be about the Viking period, including the era of Ragnar Lochbrok, the Danelaw, the berserkers, Norse religion, and its transition to Christian kingdoms, but without going too far beyond 1100, they could very well be called Vikings, or Danish, or Nordic.
2) Scandinavian Kingdoms with Little Vikings
If the civilization was only going to cover the Viking period in the first and second ages, but by the third they’ve completely forgotten about the Viking period and now have landmarks and stone structures, castles, and nothing Viking about them—just stone landmarks and firearms in Imperial Age—they could very well be called “Denmark,” “Norwegian,” or “Sweden.”
It seems they chose the design of the Scandinavian civilization with a full Viking period. In that respect, the name is fine.
I would have also liked “Norse,” but I suppose that also clashes with other types of peoples who live in the Northern Hemisphere, like the Rus, Finns, Scots, and others… especially since the Scots lived even further north than the Vikings, and appears in the same DLC.
I mean “Austria” comes from “Eastern Reich” yet no one is confused in real world about other countries existing further east. I don’t think people would complain if “Norsemen” weren’t the northernmost faction.
I find it a bit of a shame to represent the Scandinavians from the end of the Early Middle Ages when Age of Empires 4 has accustomed us to later periods.
It remains to be seen how the units and architecture evolve with the ages, but judging from the screenshots, they seem stuck in the Viking Age period (hence their name, which I also don’t like very much).
I mostly get the impression of seeing a marketing ploy with a popular concept. And a popular visual style, too. This excess of fur reminds me more of Assassin’s Creed Valhalla and other mainstream Viking media that try to portray them as barbaric and epic, without taking into account historical and archaeological research. Well, at least there aren’t any of those horrible horned helmets, so that’s not so bad…
That said, I think the buildings are really pretty, and the Viking towns must have a certain charm.
But maybe we’ll get civ variants featuring later Scandinavian kingdoms and a more “Holy Roman Empire” architectural style?
You’re right. I’d like to see the “Viking-like” aspects only shown during Feudal Age, and for the distinctive style of the Scandinavian kingdoms to emerge in the later stages of the game. Watching the architectural styles and unit appearances change as the era progresses is one of the fun aspects of the game.
there is no historical evidence of a civilization called “Byzantine Empire” either, yet it is what we call it in modern English.
this is ONE possible etymology of the word viking. The Norse word vikingr isn’t reported until the 12th century, so well after the Viking age.
The word Viking was introduced into Modern English during the late 18th-century Viking revival, at which point it acquired romanticised heroic overtones of “barbarian warrior” or noble savage.[36] During the 20th century, the meaning of the term was expanded to refer not only to seaborne raiders from Scandinavia and other places settled by them (like Iceland and the Faroe Islands), but also any member of the culture that produced the raiders during the period from the late 8th to the mid-11th centuries, or more loosely from about 700 to as late as about 1100.
Claiming that “viking just means pirate” is pseudo-knowledge/an urban myth akin to “the average human eats 3 spiders per year in their sleep”.
I think this is fair criticism.
I think “meant” instead of “means” would be more accurate. Language changes, and nowadays “Vikings” generally refers to the entire culture. Nobody would call the 17th or 18th century pirates “vikings” or the current Somali ones.
I mean it’s okay to change the language back if something is a bit too silly or if the change is beneficial for understanding. It’s unwieldy when both the culture and a specific part of such culture share the same name – imagine if all Japanese were called Samurai and all Indians Rajputs…
And Norsemen does have a cool ring to it too.
I think it’s unrealistic to try to change a language by force.
Only that Norsemen has the issue that in scientific literature it is sometimes used to distinguish between Danes and Northmen/Norsemen, while both are vikings.
Only that nobody uses “viking” to mean generally mean pirate/raider anymore. If you want to just refer to those who invaded britain you can use the words “pirate”, “raider”, “settler” etc
Is it by force though? A renaming suggestion through a thread posted on a forum ignored by the developers is hardly a forceful behaviour, just people voicing their opinion more or less politely. Some can be annoying about it, but this applies to the defenders of preserving “Viking” as well.
In the broadest sense vikings referred to pirate-merchant societies along the entire Baltic basin, be it a Germanic, a Balt, or a Finn. All could go to a viking.
And this is sad, because saying viking is cooler than saying a raider 
Native speakers have been permanently unavailable in ancient Nord languages, sadly and unfortunately. This is also the case for Latin in the Romance languages, and even in the only Latin-speaking Vatican, the authentic Latin can only be viewed for religious and legal purposes. Even with the latest technology, the loss of native speakers is such a great loss for humanity that it cannot be restored.
I didn’t mean this in the sense of “forceful behaviour”, but rather in the descriptivism vs prescriptivism sense.
I’ve already mentioned this in another thread, but I’ll repeat it here as well:
“Our priority is to create a fun and engaging game. Realism and historical accuracy are resources or ‘props’ that we use to add interest… but they aren’t our top priority”—Bruce Shelley, co-founder of ES and lead designer of AoE.
Let’s see if WE finally takes a cue from ES and understands that, while the game may be based on history, there can be elements of popular culture (names, mechanics) that aren’t strictly accurate but can be included for greater fun and engagement.
I hope they’re called Godi like in AoM…
Weird that we in Norway call it the viking age and learn about it in school from an early age. We don’t see it as a profession, we see it as what we “were” in the 800-1050. So this profession bullshit is false, put it to rest.
Interesting that you learned it in a Norwegian school and not a Viking school 
