This thread has more historical inaccuracies than there are birds in the sky, and to comment on all would take days, but I feel I at least have to comment on the OP...
The word 'Scandinavia' arose in the late Middle Ages. At this time (several hundred years AFTER the Viking Era), the largest university in the present Scandinavian area was the University of Lund (present day Southern Sweden). In those days, the southern tip of present-day Sweden was Danish. This area is still known as 'Skåne' (Scania in English). For many scholars in Lund (and other places), Lund was the centre of knowledge in the area and students came from all of Scandinavia to study here.
Anyway... The scholars of Lund mapped out the area of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (due to the similar languages and cultures) and called the area 'Skaana Aua', meaning 'The Scanian Island' (Lund, of course, being situated in Scania).
The term 'island' is not to be taken literally, but rather understood as 'an island of knowledge' in the dark world... People liked themselves a lot back then...
'Scandinavia' is obviously a Latin variation of 'Skaana Aua'.
So the term 'Scandinavian' did not arise until many years after the Viking Age. It was not even used in Scandinavia itself, as the term was a decadent, academic phrase used by high-and-mighty professors.
The term Scandinavia
is believed to derive from the germanic root *Skaðin-awjō meaning "danger" or "damage" (English, scathing/unscathed, German, Schade/beschädigen) and *awjo meaning "island". The meaning is of course uncertain, as is what it refers to, but very few (no more than one person?) would suggest that the term was invented by danish scholars in the late middle-ages, especially considering that Scandinavia appears in many works from the first millennia. For example does Pliny the Elder's writings from the first century mention
Scatinavia and
Scandiae, as does Ptolemaios's from the second century. Other forms like
Codanovia, Scandza, Scandanan, Scatenauge, Scadinavia and Sconaowe, can be found in texts by Pomponius Mela, Jordanes, Paulus Diaconus to name few. The oldest Scandinavian sources use the term
the northern lands (Norðrlöndum) a term still in usage in Iceland today, wich leads us to the next subject;
The term ‘Norsemen’ is a phrase that has existed since the Iron Age and is a word that was used mainly by English and French monks who were harassed by raiders from Norway and Denmark. The meaning is simply ‘men from the North’ and is of course a reference to all ‘Viking’ raiders or people from what is now known as Scandinavia. The thing to remember here is that this term was only used by OTHER cultures, never the actual people themselves. The term later evolved into ‘Normans’, as the area of Normandy was named after the ‘Norsemen’ who invaded the area and settled there. The Normans did indeed take the name for themselves, but this was much later. At this point, they no longer considered themselves of the same culture as their ancestors (William the Conqueror’s grandfather, Rollo, was from Faxe in Denmark and was the chief who conquered the area later known as Normandy).
So the term ‘Norsemen’ was not used by the people themselves, but was a term used by others. It was considered an ‘evil’ word. In a version of The Lord’s Prayer found in England, dating from the 9th Century, the line “Deliver us from evil” is actually phrased “Deliver us from the Norsemen”.
So using the term ‘Norsemen’ is as wrong as using the word ‘Barbarians’.
"The northern lands" and "northmen" (refering to all Scandinavians) are in frequent use in the sagas. Granted, they are medieval and not contemporary viking-age sources, but I am inclined to think that our forefathers did not suddenly begin using a foreign "evil" name to describe themselves but rather used a very natural depiction as being men of the north just as we do today.
If there exists a contemporary source it would be a runestone inscription. There are archives with all known inscriptions wich someone with interest and patience could search trough. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to get back on the subject later.
This is without a doubt one of the greatest misunderstandings in the history of language. The term ‘Viking’ was indeed used by the people themselves, and it is definitely the most recognisable of all the phrases.
However, the word ‘Viking’ is not a noun; it is a ‘verb’!
‘Viking’ was not something you were, but rather something you DID!
In many of the Icelandic Sagas, this word appears, but always in contexts like this:
”Han samlede en hær og drog i viking.” = “He raised an army and went viking.”
‘To go viking’, can roughly be translated as ‘to go plundering’ or ‘pirating’.
So using the term ‘Viking’ is actually as wrong as calling them ‘The Killings’ or ‘The Fightings’.
As has been pointed out before in this thread "Viking" is used also as a name and as a noun. In the
Landnámabók for example you can read "Flóki Vilgerðarson hét maður; hann var víkingur mikill" (There was a man called Flóki Vilgerðarson; he was a great viking). In fact you can argue weather it is really used as a verb at all; the saying is "Att fara i viking" - to go in viking, where the verb is "to go".
The term ‘Danes’ dates back to Roman times and is the name of the tribe of people who lived in present-day Denmark and Norway (as well as southern Sweden). The first time the ‘Danes’ are mentioned is in accounts of the barbarian raids on Rome in the 5th century. There are also accounts of the ‘Kimbrer’ tribe that were a break-off tribe of the ‘Dani’ in earlier centuries, who wreaked havoc throughout Europe.
The term ‘Denmark’ is first mentioned in Frankish texts from the early 8th century and describes the area of present day Denmark, Norway, Iceland and southern Sweden. It means ‘The borderland of the Danes’
Iceland was "discovered" by Scandinavians in the 9th century. Some Irish monks is said to have lived there before in shorter duration seeking solitude. The island was however not under danish rule until the entire norwegian crown was in the Kalmar union. As for Norway being a part of Denmark during the end of the Scandinavian iron-age (the viking-era), there was a continuous struggle between different kings trying to lay all northern lands under their own rule, so from time to time control over different lands shifted between the kings of Denmark, Norway and Sweden meaning Denmark too was subject for conquest. This was however a powerstruggle between rich/noble families and probably ment very little for the common people.
The term ‘Norway’ comes from the present-day word ‘Norge’, which again comes from the term ‘Nord Rige’ or ‘Nord Rike’ which means ‘The Realm to the North’.
Well, to be precise, the term "Norway" comes from "Norðrvegr" refering to the (at the time only possible) sailingroute north at Karmøy on the west coast.
‘Sweden’ is actually called ‘Sverige’, which comes from ‘Svea Rige’ or ‘Svea Rike’, which means ‘The Realm of Svea’. There is debate in historical circles as to whether ‘Svea’ was a man or a people, but the legends say that he was the brother of a Danish king ‘Dan’ who settled his own land to the east. The historical facts of this are doubtful.
What legends are that? And what historical circles are considering Svea (a modern female name) to have been a historical man?
Svea rige means "the realm of sve", and sve (or sue) is believed to mean "us" or "our own" and deriving from a proto-germanic *Swihoniz or *Sweoniz.
Throughout Western Europe, the term ‘Danes’ was universally used to describe the raiders from Denmark and Norway. By the 10th century the Danes were feared throughout Europe.[...]To understand why the Norwegians were not distinguished from the Danes, one must understand the cultural links between the two.
It has to do with proximity. The Danes, living closest to England and France, gave name to all northmen, Swedes as well. For a while old norse also went under the name "danish tounge". It's a common phenomenon, the Finnish name for Germany, for example, is Saksland deriving from the Saxons.
Denmark and Norway have historically always been linked. Of the three Scandinavian languages, Danish and Norwegian are by far the most similar – Swedish is considerably different.
This is of course a matter of opinion and the subject has been brought up earlier in the thread where the terms west scandinavian (norwegian, icelandic and faeroese) and east scandinavian dialects (danish and swedish) has been pointed out, but I would like to stress the fact that the distinction of danish, swedish and norwegian as being different languages comes from us having several parliaments, all running their own languagepolicies.
Norway was part of the Danish kingdom throughout the Viking era and all the way up until the early 19th century, where it was taken over by Sweden. During the Viking era, Norway had its own vassal kings that often were in conflict with Danish kings, the most powerful of these was Harald Harderaade, who challenged Denmark on several occasions and who even tried to take over England after the Danes left. In the 14th century the final Norwegian royal bloodline died out and Norway was effectively a part of Denmark. In 1814 Norway came under Swedish rule (due to years of Danish stupidity).
In 1905 Norway finally became independent and offered the crown to the Danish prince Carl, who took the name Haakon. The fact that they gave the crown to a Danish prince is also proof of the feeling of unity between the two countries.
If we go back to the Viking era again and take a look at the Swedes, their focus was much different than that of the Danes. Where the Danes engaged Western Europe, the Swedes looked East and set up immense trade routes along the rivers of Russia and managed to reach the Caspian Sea and beyond. They founded Kiev and other cities along the rivers and were great merchants and traders, unlike any the world had seen. They were, however, not a people of raiders in the same sense as the Danes were, and the shear impact they had on Europe could not match that of the Danes.
While I don't think they actually founded any cities, they did establish a dynasty that governed Novgorod, Kiev and many other cities and surrounding areas for a couple of centuries. Snorri speaks of the area as "greater Sweden" wich could be a remnant of the rulers originally being taxsubjects to the Swedish king. A majority of the northmen traveling eastward were Swedes but there were Danes and Norwegians there too just as many Swedes traveled westward together with Norwegians and Danes. Remember this, it's important when it comes to the debate whether it's could be considered historically correct or not having a common norse/scandinavian civ in the game.
Centuries later, the three countries were in a union for a while known as the Kalmar Union, but this was more of a mutual protection pact and an economic union than anything else. The Swedes hated it and eventually left the union, feeling that the Danes were calling too many shots. The Swedes later rose to become a huge power in Europe, almost annihilating Denmark in devastating wars.
So if we are to speak of the ‘Viking’ civilization, it is foolish and lazy to throw them all together into one, especially when one takes into account the rivalry between Denmark and Sweden.
Denmark and Sweden are in fact the two countries in the world that have been at war most times. Since the Viking era, the two nations have been at war 29 times – every single time, Norway has fought on the Danish side.
As I stated above the attempts of bringing all northern lands under one ruler began during the scandinavian iron age, and it continued during the medieval era until the cunning Margaret managed to bring all crowns together in a personal union with the monarch situated in Copenhagen. The Kalmar union was certainly much more than a defense pact and one great ambition was to stem the influence of the (german) Hanseatic League. Unfortunately Margaret's successors weren't as competent as her and eventually german influence grew within the king's administration, something wich upset especially the swedish noblemen who were set aside, not to mention the commoners who had little interest in being taxed by german tax collectors. The union came to an end in the 16th century but the notion of a united Scandinavia did not and with Sweden's growing power came increasing attempts to achieve unification (this time with Stockholm as the capital city) through conquest.
What I want to point out here is the fact that despite all wars fought between Sweden and Denmark we still consider ourselves brothers and sisters (well, most of us do anyway) while Russia and it's predecessors, adversaries since the early middle-ages are generally not at all held in high regard. So the number of wars is not a determination of any difference in culture as some posts in this thread is trying to indicate.
Another interesting thing worth mentioning is the Jelling Stone. This is a large finely engraved stone (well, two stones actually) put up around 965 AD in Jelling, Denmark by Harald Blaatand (sometimes translated as 'Bluetooth' but actually meaning 'Blue King' - Tand = Thane = King)[...]
That alternative translation is very interesting indeed! Any more information about it?
My conclusion is, that if it is to be remotely historically accurate, the ‘Viking’ civilization in the Civ games should be the ‘Danish Empire’, led by Knud den Store (Canute the Great).
Sweden should also be represented as a seperate Civ, only as the immense economic and military powerhouse they were throughout the 16th and 17th centuries.
And that’s all I have to say about that. Let’s hear what you all think.
Well, everything is modable I suppose, but I'm certain that Firaxis will never include two Scandinavian states in the game, so the question is rather if this one Scandinavian civilisation should have emphasis on the iron age and a citylist including Jelling, Birka, Skiringssal etc or if it should represent Scandinavia up to modern days having a citylist beginning with later and greater places like Copenhagen, Stockholm and Oslo.
).
.
. I know more about my Nordic friend's histories then they do 
