Is Total War Rome 2 Historically Accurate?! ♠

Welcome to Iberia, I am Wolf and today we'll analyze the historical accuracy and authenticity of the video game Total War Rome 2. But why are we going to do this? Well first, it presents itself as an historical title that aims to depict the political and military struggles of the 3rd century BCE, second because I love both the game and the period and finally because it's fun to overanalyze things, so let's jump into the game. Total War Rome 2 is a strategy game that allows you to pick up 1 out of 32 different factions and lead it to conquer the whole map. And I have to say, it's a large map ranging from Portugal in the west to Iran in the east and it's quite diverse with a total of 117 factions divided into 4 major culture groups further divided into 17 subcultures and a whopping 183 cities populating it. That is a lot of numbers, but for a video game it is quite impressive and it allows for an interesting level of granularity when depicting the different factions, but how accurate exactly are all of these numbers? Let's jump into Italy. This is where things go wrong. If we have a look at the Etruscans for example, they are on the Roman culture group with the Latin subculture group. Well historically this isn't factual, Etruscan culture can be traced all the way into the late 1st century BCE at which point it disappears. In 272 BCE, the start date of Total War Rome 2, the Etruscans are about to be subjugated by Rome, but they won't be an actual part of Rome for the next 200 years, acting instead as a client state that pays taxes and supplies manpower to their overlord. Looking now at Southern Italy, so called Magna Graecia at this point in time, we see that it's depicted in the game as being Roman territory, but once again this is actually not accurate. Several Italic tribes and Greek communities were settled in the area. I find it disappointing that this wasn't represented in the game. In fact, Rome had just subjugated these peoples, but they were not a part of Rome. They were instead client states, just like the Etruscan cities were. That said, this was probably a game design choice as it simplified the game quite a bit. We can assume that de facto, these client states were essentially puppets. Puppets that the player can do with as they please and as such, it's as if they were a part of Rome itself. And as there is no assimilation mechanic in the game, this is a clean way to manage it. I do wonder however, why do the Seleucids have so many satrapies or vassals? And the answer is, I think, quite obvious, that is because it would massively tip the balance of power in favor of the Seleucids in the Middle East. But now I want to move into Sicily. Notice how there are only two cities? This is extremely inaccurate, there were many settlements in Sicily, some larger than others of course, but there are at least two important cities missing here. Messana, that sparked the first Punic War, and Agrigentum, one of the most important cities during this period. This can be applied all over the map. Last thing I want to say about the map is best represented by any barbarian ruled region. In this case, let's have a look at Gaul. Gaul was home to hundreds of different tribes, ranging from small to large. The most famous one being the Arverni. Total War Rome 2 divides the Gallic tribes into less than a dozen tribes. This happens in Germania, in Iberia, Britain for example. This could have been accurate if, when playing the Celtic factions such as the Arverni, you'd clearly be leading a collection of tribes with different wants and needs, and that could But this unfortunately isn't the case. In fact, all political systems in the game play in very similar fashion, not even semi-accurately portraying the politics of different cultures or government systems. It was a missed opportunity for more gameplay diversity, but my friends, it's enough of critiquing the campaign. Total War is known for its battles, so let's do a critique of those now. How accurate are they? In short, not very. I love Total War battles, but they really aren't all that accurate. However, let's start with the good. Yes, there is some good here. The equipment is period appropriate, from the breastplates to the spolas, from the lorica segmentata to the bronze cuirassas. The equipment is great, with mods adding even more detail and variations of the equipment, but that's all about it. Everything else in battles is somewhat fantasy-like. There are no baggage trains and no camps near the battlefields. I mean, why? I feel that this is, once again, a missed opportunity. Having your camp raided mid-battle was a morale blow, retreating to the baggage train was a thing. In fact, Germanian women would watch the battle from the baggage train, they would shame the men who fled the battlefield to go back into the fray and fight if they must. Baggage trains could also be used strategically to block certain paths. Armies were not made up of 20 units. This is a somewhat accurate depiction of Roman or Macedonian armies, who were divided into many divisions who were semi-autonomous, but most armies would be divided into 5 or 6 divisions at most. While we're at it, the player can issue orders mid-battle, with units reacting instantly. This would be difficult to pull off, especially without banners or musical instruments that are completely absent from the game and were paramount instruments on ordering your men around the battlefield. Most battles were planned previously with specific signals for specific movements. And the fighting. It's fast, messy and men have no regard for their lives. Nor the horses for that matter, since they charge head on into anything. Oh, but it doesn't end here. No, no, no, no, no. So, there's no teamwork whatsoever, overcrowding also seems to not play a role, chargers are essentially a formation crunch. Well, I mean guys, real battles could last for many hours. It's not unheard of, stopping the battle to remove the dead and give the men a rest, just mid-fight. They would do that, sometimes. Engagements were often started by walking slowly towards the enemy. Often, you would protect your partner while he thrusts his spear. Formations were well kept, it was important. But, let's face it, I don't want my battles in Rome 2 to last for hours, I don't have that much time and it's totally understandable that they last just maybe 10-15 minutes. Summarizing, battles in Rome 2 are very unrealistic, the redeeming factors is that they look epic at times and the equipment is quite accurate for the period. Overall, I feel that Rome 3 has a lot of room for improvement if Creative Assembly ever decides to make it, there's so much historical accuracy that could be added into it. And historical accuracy doesn't have to be boring, it can be incorporated into gameplay as fun, interesting and engaging features, or in mechanics of course, such as different political systems as we spoke before, or new battle mechanics or animations. Anyway, how accurate do you think Total War Rome 2 is? Do you agree with all that I said? Let me know in the comments below, let's have a conversation about it. I've been Wolf, stay wonderful and I'll see you all on the next one. Peace!