He Comes: Rome II Hannibal Trailer

By Ben Barrett on August 2nd, 2013 at 9:00 am.

It’s all been a little historical on RPS of late, what with bringing you not only Adam’s ginormahuge and historically important hands-on feature for Creative Assembly’s Rome II, but also the latest trailer from the depths of… wherever makes Rome II trailers.

Lo, it introduces the legendary Hannibal Barca by way of debate in a Roman council on his next move in the on-going war. Take a look beneath, like an archaeologist of fun times.

Heh, elephants, good joke that man.

Loving the cinematic introduction for one of history’s most recognisable figures, though. Of course, what they’re attempting to show off is the myriad ways in which the various new systems allow Rome 2 (and, by extension, you) to more accurately reenact history than ever before. Or, as is more likely, craft a superior alternate. The question remains, however: would you rather fight one elephant sized Hannibal or five Hannibal sized elephants?

__________________

« | »

, , .

64 Comments »

  1. staberas says:

    Hah elephants from the North , that was a good one …

  2. Njordsk says:

    I’ll so play carthage first !

    Anyone knows if mesopotamia will be playable?

    • Fanbuoy says:

      Highly doubtful that there will be a faction/nation called Mesopotamia, but I’m pretty certain that the Parthians will be in the game.

      EDIT: Mesopotamia might also belong to the Seleucids, but that depends on start date and stuff. My guess is Parthia. Otherwise, the Parthians may end up so far east that they’ll barely fit on the map.

      • Njordsk says:

        Indeed, I didn’t mean a clan called “mesopotamia”, but someone rulling over this region and being playable.

        • Chris D says:

          Here, have an interactive campaign map:

          http://maps.totalwar.com/rome2map

          Mesopotamia begins as a client state of the currently unplayable Seleucids. The nearest playable faction is a three way tie between Parthia, Egypt and Pontus.

          • Fanbuoy says:

            What the flip is this!? The Seleucids aren’t playable? They’ll be sorely missed. I smell a DLC coming.

          • Chris D says:

            Possibly. While conspiracy theories are abounding over on the forums, I incline to the view that it was more likely a case of CA deciding that starting with a large empire wasn’t going to be practical to balance or make fun to play. The arc of a Total War game has been about starting small and getting bigger and doesn’t really lend itself to modelling a declining empire in the way something like Crusader Kings does.

            Personally what I liked about the Seleucids from Rome 1 was that they were the cool faction with Pikes and Elephants and Chariots. That faction is still in, it’s just that they’re called Egypt this time around.

          • Lokik says:

            I’d take a guess that the Seleucids will become playable in a DLC, with Bactria and Armenia included in the same pack. Interesting how most of the Seleucid Empire is made out of client states and not under your direct control. Should make playing as them a big military and political challenge, especially with the Parthians, Bactrians and Ptolemaic Egypt constantly trying to take bites out of your rickety empire. A good way to make them more balanced I guess, but we shall see.

          • DigitalParadox says:

            I believe that Pontus, which is downloadable as free day 1 DLC, will fulfill a lot of the traits of the Seleucids in kind of being a mish mash of units from various cultures.

            But really, who wants to play as Pontus anyway?

        • sonson says:

          The Seleucid should essentially just look like the Successor Egyptians. I know the Egyptians are wearing pretty Egypt hats rather then the Greco garb they should be but in terms of composition they’re about right for a successor state.

          Think I’m going to go Parthia first personally. Best Rome Campaign I ever played with Parthia. It was an early version of RTR and the only play through I’ve actually got defeated in, but the ebbing and flowing of my war against Successor Egypt until defeat was epic.

          Edit: Seleucids are definitely in it, just not playable, says Mr Map.

  3. greg_ritter says:

    I really wish they would do a rebellion of Spartacus. It was nearly an end to Rome, whole Italy was burning, pirates, war is Spain with Sertorius, war with Mitridatus and the Great Armenia, and on top of that – inner turmoil in Rome. Catalina, Pompeus Magnus, Crassus, Ceasar….
    Oh God, I need this now.

    • Arcanon says:

      Nearly an end to Rome? What are you talking about? With the North blocked and the pirate fleet turning tail, Crassus and Pompeo crushed the rebellion without too much trouble.

      They might add it as a one time even during the Roman Campaign, but I doubt it will be anything more than that, unless they decide to appeal to all the people who think Spartacus: the TV Show is historically accurate (LOL) and make a DLC out of it.

      • greg_ritter says:

        With all other wars that were happening in Pax Romana and with echoes of previous civil war between Sulla and Marius it’s fair to say that rebellion was a big deal. Spartacus destroyed his fair share of legions and took their Eagles, once even planning to attack the City itself. He was at least on par with Hannibal.

        • Fanbuoy says:

          Pax Romana started several decades after the third servile war. There were conflicts with other nations though (the Mithradatic wars, in particular), but I think Rome had recovered from Sulla by the time of the rebellion. Yes, Spartacus caused some severe damage to the Romans, but he was never an existential threat to the republic. Hannibal had Rome on its knees, even causing several Italian areas to turn against Rome.

          • Ysellian says:

            Spartacus was largely forgotten as the ages past. The only reason he has so much popularity is because he was a slave and it makes a good storyline. If Hannibal got his reinforcements we’d be looking at a different world right now.

      • Wednesday says:

        That’s not true at all, Spartacus remained a bogeyman and dirty word late into the empire’s history.

        • Ysellian says:

          source? I just don’t read much about Spartacus because many historians tend to breeze through it in favor of the more interesting parts. In fact I never even got Spartacus in highschool. The thing about Spartacus is that the biggest loss he inflicted on Rome was the loss of his own army, an army of slaves. Losing up to 70~120k(?) workforce is not a laughing matter.

          • Wednesday says:

            I forget the Author, but “Along the Spartacus Road” directly quotes a fifth century Roman using his name, as well as other ways in which his memory stuck with the Romans.

            The slave revolt(and yes, I know it wasn’t the first) terrified the Romans utterly, the very bedrock of their society turned against them.

          • Ysellian says:

            Thanks! I’ll probably give the book a good reading.

    • Bobsy says:

      It could happen during R:TW. Happened in my first campaign, as I recall. Not to me, because I was Scipii and therefore completely shit-hot, but I seem to remember the clumsy Brutii twonks flailing about as Spartacus went crazy all over Naples.

      It’s been ages since I played a TW (Empire… hurt me), but I think the system was that if a random event like a revolt was taking place, it would generate a historical character to lead it if it came within a certain appropriate period. Like William Wallace would appear in M:TW if Scotland rebelled against England at the right time.

  4. Leon says:

    I don’t know if I’m thick and missing the joke, but… Hannibal Barca, dudes. Barca.

  5. DarkLiberator says:

    Probably fight one, just take out his legs, and you’re good to go.

  6. Gap Gen says:

    OK, so Punnic Wars time.

    His men used to make fun of his pale complexion, calling him the milky Barcid.

  7. Serenegoose says:

    The only time I actually bothered finishing Rome (because do people really finish TW games?) was as Carthage. Loads of fun. I invaded mainland Rome early, knocked out the Scipii, moved south and kicked out the brutii (but didn’t cross to greece) and then up through rome and into the alps. I spent the next bulk of the game snapping up Italy and Gaul, when the unthinkable happened. At the Rhine, I ran into the Brutii. Whilst I was busy taking the entire west half of the map, they’d grabbed the east, and came at me with armies of four stacks at a time. Faaaaaahsands of ‘em. Best total war experience by far.

  8. tnzk says:

    History is so boring.

    Could have at least thrown in his most famous quote “I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.”

    • Gap Gen says:

      Bear in mind that this Hannibal killed far more people than t’other.

    • LennyLeonardo says:

      Surely the most famous is “I love it when a plan comes together”?

    • DrScuttles says:

      Partial to “Dream much, Will?” myself. Less iconic but strikes me as colder. And I love Manhunter. Love it hard.

    • Bhazor says:

      Roman history has completely ruined fiction for me. People keep trying to make me give a shit about Game of Thrones and I’m like “Did I ever tell you about Publius Clodius Pulcher? The 1960′s beatnik living in ancient Rome who desecrated a religious ceremony by dressing as a woman and attempting to have an affair with the popes wife? Who stole an army from his brother in law during his work experience? Who returned to Rome to face allegations of incest with his sister? Oh some character in Game of Thrones killed some jerk? Thats nice for them. Did I ever tell you about Gracchi brothers?”

      Ceasar also takes credit for best action movie one liner I’ve ever heard.
      “I could kill you faster than I could threaten to kill you”

  9. Bobsy says:

    (All but one of those elephants died before he reached the battlefield. When the senators scoff at the idea of bringing them over the alps, they’ve got a point)

    (also, the maps that the romans made looked more like this. Sorry)

    • Kieron Gillen says:

      I’m pretty sure you’re over-reaching there, Bobsy. He apparently had 37 of the fuckers of Trebia. They died shortly after, but Trebia is certainly a battle, and an essential one to win.

      I have a strange crush on Carthage at times. I really do.

      • Didden says:

        This is an in our time podcast of the destruction of Carthage. Its very interesting to see how damn resourceful they were. Almost worked too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00hdd5x

      • Gap Gen says:

        Wikipedia claims he had 37 when he arrived at the Rhone, before the Alps, with only a few surviving into Italy (and this is referenced from the huge book by Serge Lancel that I read when I was a teenager because yeah, I had a weird Carthage crush too. I think it comes from being a whole other civilisation that was probably more developed than Rome, but that was completely wiped out by them so little of their influence remains.)

        • Kieron Gillen says:

          Wikipedia also claims they were there in the battle of Trebia. Be careful with Wikipedia, as depending on what pages you’re looking at, the numbers can vary enormously. It’s unwise to assume that Wikipedia even agrees with itself. Stating the obvious, I know, but…

          (I recently tried to get a fact check on the crew-size of the Battleship Yamato as I was away from my books, and there was 1000 people difference between the low and high crew estimate. (2200-3200 or so.))

          But they’ve got a described tactical role in the battle of Trebia. They’re in the history of what went down there. That means there were more than one at that point, and that was Northern Italy.

          (Trebia page also says they died after that from the cold, though there’s one source that says several rather than one survived)

          • Gap Gen says:

            I imagine even a few elephants can have an impact. But yeah, I can’t find a better source right now short of walking into a bookshop and picking through the biggest book they have on it (all my books on Carthage are in another country right now). It’s sort of worrying that Wikipedia is such a go-to resource to the point where reliable secondary sources are hard to come by. Although granted, Roman historians weren’t exactly the most reliable either.

            Also, thanks for reminding me about your article on agency referring to Carthage in the first Total War (on the PC Gamer blog, I think?). Point being that Hannibal was mainly unstuck not because he failed as a general, but because his people were merchants and not psychopathic warriors like the Romans were.

          • Kieron Gillen says:

            Yeah – I mean, Wikipedia is great, but especially on Ancient stuff, isn’t nearly as open when it’s being controversial or not.

            Hah. I forgot I wrote about that somewhere. That’s one of my standard Riffs – the absolute frustration Hannibal must have felt. It’s less that Carthage was weak than Carthage was entirely normal. Rome’s biggest single advance was the simple fact they didn’t sue for peace when literally the whole rest of the civilized world would. Rome was simply playing a different game than anyone else. The Asterix “These romans are crazy” is totally true.

          • Gap Gen says:

            Out of interest, does anyone have any idea why the Romans were like that? Was it because the tribes that merged around Rome to form the city were always fighting? Or was it just that it happened by chance, and the most murderous bastards tend to do the best when given room to expand?

          • Bhazor says:

            Best summary I’ve heard is that the Roman senate acted like a mafia crime family. Any weak elements would be chased out of power/executed and replaced with someone more aggressive and more capable. So in the punic wars the senate was composed of people who refused to show any weakness or back down. It ultimately back fired later on when individual senators became too aggressive and began seizing control of the senate.

          • His Divine Shadow says:

            there are theories that Romans were in fact Nordic, so they were appropriately stoic, determined, and annoyingly judgmental

          • Gap Gen says:

            Yeah, it sort of backfired on the Republic when Sulla was like “Hey, I can just march my legions into Rome and no-one can do dick.”

          • His Divine Shadow says:

            yeah, that certainly sullied Roman history

          • Chiron says:

            Adrian Goldworthy: The Punic Wars details all 3 conflicts very well, 1 elephant survived the crossing of the Alps according to this. Hannibal spent a chunk of time intimidating the Celts with it and resting his troops after the march before Trebia et al.

      • ukpanik says:

        That’s irrelevant.

    • sonson says:

      Speaking of Elephants, it would be great to see them done right, although from the demo it would seem they have gone with both Elephants and chariots as just being ancient era tanks to run people over, which they weren’t for the most part, they were used as platforms for the soldiers who mounted them as well as for the morale shock their presence caused, particularly in cavalry.

      Infantry quickly learned how to open up lanes through which to funnel elephants into a killing ground, and with this on top of the elephants reluctance to run into a wall of sharp sticks in the first place they really didn’t get to use their bulk and size to much effect.

      Also-sort of off topic but looking forward to “Three” KG! One of my most surprising moments from my history degree was my lecturer showing us the phalanx in 300 by way of demonstrating how it worked. I’ve heard many other excellent academics likewise point to it as a fine example of the formation since. Look forward to another comic which adds further historical accuracy to the Spartan legend.

      • His Divine Shadow says:

        what about *cataphract* elephants though?

        • sonson says:

          I could be wrong but I believe they were more an element of early medieval eastern empires for the most part. I believe the Sassanid’s used them a lot but they were 6 or 7 centuries AD at the earliest. The Mughals certainly did but that was another 8 hundred years on again. For the most part they were missile platforms though, their armour was for protection rather than as an offensive asset.

          I think the point is not that generals didn’t try and charge elephants in per se- Phyrrus of Epirus used them to excellent effect in doing so if I remember right, and Alexander’s men had great trouble when first encountering them crossing the Indus-more than they were so erratic and so essentially spooked by the realities of battle, poor things, that they were easy for solid troops to adapt to or avoid, and so for them to have any effectiveness at against professional armies for most of antiquity they were mostly reduced to standing there being indomitable and threatening.

          They were envisioned as heavy cavalry, but without the flexibility or temperament of horses they were just as vulnerable to disciplined formations and not nearly as versatile as their equine mates and rarely able to bring their bulk and momentum to bear.

  10. Gap Gen says:

    Also one of those senators sounds a teeny bit like Brian Blessed…

  11. SAeN says:

    At around 2:08 in the trailer you can see 3 armies having a dance off in the top left. Unannounced DLC?

  12. Bhazor says:

    “An elephant? What’s an elephant?”
    “Well its… like a big upside down squirrel. They’re very large”
    “.. That scares the crap out of me. Lets surrender”

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>