Computer games can be educational. No really, they can!

As a red-blooded dweeb, when I was a child I certainly went through my pseudo-academic obsession with the little-boy trinity of Dinosaurs, Vikings and Romans (there are variations on this trinity, most involving Samurai). It turns out that young, male weaklings find something to admire in blood-thirsty warriors and giant teeth-baring lizards. It's the same tendency that gave rise to the Klingon Empire (from Star Trek, a series notoriously written by a cabal of alpha males).

The making of a monster

The desire to learn more about these terrifying figures from history can be enough to get you going, but I’d say that games have a role to play also.

Educational games are rubbish, but that doesn’t mean good games can’t be educational. In my experience, for me to remember or understand anything I need to have it drilled into my head time and time again until it becomes second nature. Certainly, when I program, it’s only by the 56th time I’ve used a function that it becomes part of my lexicon.

This is a real problem when learning about history. Even when you’re interested in the subject matter (which many people never are) it’s hard to keep tabs on all the people and events.

Games, on the other hand, through their very mechanics can teach gamers real concepts that will ring true to any historian. Every young boy who played strategy games knows what a trebuchet is, and that obviously the best type of soldier to defeat cavalry is a pike man. I remember the look of glee on my brother’s face when we watched the third, horrible Lord of the Rings movie. They had trebuchets defending the walls of Minas Tirith, and when the Rohirrim rode onto the scene to flank the orcs, the orc leader sensibly proclaimed “Pikes in front, archers behind”. My brother and I shared a glance which clearly said “Look! They’re talking about Age of Empires II”


Though boys might grow out of the initial Trinity of Historical Violence, a yearning for ancient bloodshed remains, which was satisfied for me in my twenties by a wonderful game called Rome: Total War. It is a half strategic, half tactical game where you play as a Roman faction gradually taking over assorted provinces, and leading troops in battle. For purposes of clarification I’ve photoshopped my face onto the game’s title image:

Gaius Awoogamufficus Primus Princeps

Each season you organise troop movements and manage cities, and if one of your armies does engage the enemy, you’ll zoom into a battle ground and lead your men to victory. You have to take into account your troops’ energy and also morale, or they might run away. In fact, some units, such as the British head hurlers (they throw severed heads dipped in lime at the enemy) are designed purely to terrify and route the enemy. Good ol’ Brits.

Pay no head to these guys

But apart from the setting, how is this game educational? Obviously, due to player agency, history is unlikely to repeat itself. But the game does some clever things to nudge you in the right direction.

When you start the game, you choose one of three factions. If you go with the Julii, you’ll start at the North of Italy and will naturally end up warring with the Gauls, as did Julius Caesar. If however, you choose the Scipii, you’ll be in the South and Sicily, leading inevitably to war with the Carthaginians, reflecting the Punic wars which gave Scipio Africanus his nickname.

If you look at the map at the bottom left, you'll see that in this game as the Brutii I've taken over most of the East. Only a small Parthian holdout remains. I will crush them.

Finally, you can play as the Brutii, which will take you East to conquer Greece and Asia minor, though I think they missed a trick here by not calling the family the Pompeii. The man associated with the conquest of the East was Pompey the Great, but I suppose they decided that Brutus was a more famous figure.

The battlefield lies strewn with the bodies of my enemies

As you progress through the campaign, there are plenty of nods to history. At one point you’ll have a gladiatorial rebellion. At another, your army will be completely revamped due to the reforms introduced by Gaius Marius. This actually happened in 107 BC. He professionalized the army, which is probably one of the steps towards the death of the Republic as it made soldiers loyal to their generals (who controlled their pay) rather than their country. Having it affect gameplay was a clever touch.

The Julii foolishly try to besiege my city

And finally, of course, as your military exploits earn you fame and the love of the people, the senate will become increasingly suspicious of you until eventually you are forced into war with both SPQR and the other two Roman families, reflecting the Roman civil wars. Obviously a simplified telling, but a great game that personalizes ancient history.

We march on Rome!

My fascination with Rome led me to a wonderful podcast (there’s always a podcast) by Mike Duncan, simply called the History of Rome. His style is academic, but friendly and warm. Just be careful not to binge listen because I guarantee you’ll get lost. A lot can happen in 800 years.

In episode 7, he talks about Cincinnatus, a semi-mythical figure of early Roman history who in times of crisis took on the dictatorship (granting him absolute power), each time nobly relinquishing power as soon as the job was done to return to his farmlands.

 Now look at this image:

This is George Washington depicted as Cincinnatus, a very common interpretation seeing as he too stepped down when he could well have ruled indefinitely. Mike Duncan often draws parallels between Roman and American history, but did I get into American history because of him? Of course not, it was because of Assassin's Creed 3.

The Assassin's Creed series is based around a fun piece of technology called the Animus which allows people to relive the experiences of their ancestors. It's also about an ancient war between two shady organisations, the Assassins and the Templars, who are fighting over pieces of technology left behind by a powerful species that appear to be the model for the Greek gods and... well, to be honest the AC story line has crawled so far up its own arse that even the developers have given up on it. It's just a premise to have a bunch of action games set in historical contexts.

The third game in the series (well, actually the fifth, but let’s not get bogged down) is much maligned for its half-baked game mechanics, it’s sullen protagonist and some really, really stupid trees.

God I hate you stupid tree

But I enjoyed the game and the setting, which is at the cusp of the American Revolution. During the game you meet assorted historical characters like George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Lafayette.

Charles Lee as depicted in AC3. He shit the bed at the battle of Monmouth

You also meet the general Charles Lee, who in this game is working for the evil Templar order, though I suspect in reality he was just incompetent, as depicted in the musical Hamilton, “I’m a general. Wheeeeeee!”.


As I played the game I got the nagging sensation that I suspect many people have, which is a sense that I know a lot less about these people than I should. So I got to reading biographies of the early American presidents, and the task was made much easier by having played the game. I could put a digitized face to names, and it’s easier to remember events when you’ve virtually participated in them. I was there at the battle of Lexington and Concord, a battle which rivals Han and Greedo in the “who shot first?” stakes.

All this to say that, given the player has an ounce of curiosity, games are a great launching-off point for real learning, and give another perspective on otherwise dull topics. It’s one thing to know what happened, but it’s quite another to have experience them yourself, simplified though they may be in game form.