Quote Originally Posted by diablodelmar
It is historically accurate what are you on?
You know, I do think that a lot of the flak R:TW gets for being ahistorical is undeserved, since previous TW games were only an aproximation of history, and a lot of the errors are just details. However, saying that it is historically accurate is just incorrect. For example, have a look at this thread. The most obvious mistake is off course the representation of Ptolemeic Egypt. It is depicted as the Middle Kingdom, while in fact it was a Successor state, and fought like one. The barbarians are only roughly historical. There were huge differences between the Spanish, Celts, Germans, Thracian and Scyths, yet the game puts them in one culture and makes them all wear colour-variations on the same trousers. Their unit rosters tend to be very simplistic compared to other factions. Anyway, why were the Iberians called the Spanish? Nobody uses that term for the tribes that inhabited the Iberian peninsula. While we are speaking of tribes, how come the barbarians be so united? Gaul was wrecked by a debilitating civil war with multiple sides, the British islands were completely disunited, and the same applied to the Germans. The Greeks cities weren't a political union either. The Scyths were only a shadow of their former power and were being slowly absorbed or exterminated by the Sarmatians. For Rome the situation is reversed: there were several (i.e. more than three) families competing for power, but they didn't own the land they conquered and they didn't have private armies until quite late into the Republic.

Oh, and Head Hurlers?