Since there seems to be confusion about concepts in here let us here break it down for further clarity.
Quick Summary
It is possible for something to be historically authentic and historically inaccurate at the same time. Enlisted might be historically inaccurate in several respects but still convey a sense of authenticity or realism.
But like in general, the acceptability of inaccuracies and anachronisms in Enlisted will depend on the expectations of the audience. Some people may be more forgiving than others.
If Enlisted aims to be historically accurate I would say they failed.
If Enlisted aims to be historically authentic I would say they succeeded.
First of all: what “historical authenticity” or “historical accuracy” actually means has been debated eternally and the answer will vary depending on a lot of different criteria.
Let’s stick to common sense here and understand these concepts in a way that is generally accepted by the majority.
So what’s the difference between historical authenticity and historical accuracy?
-
Historical authenticity refers to the degree to which a historical account, artifact, or event accurately reflects the historical period or context it is associated with.
It involves a commitment to representing the past truthfully and avoiding anachronism.
Authenticity, from the Greek authentikos = reliable, trustworthy.
- Historical accuracy refers to the degree to which something is factually correct or true to the historical record. It involves being correct in details, such as dates, names, and events. In other words, it is about being faithful to historical facts.
Accuracy, from Latin accuratus = prepared with care, exact, elaborate.
So what’s the difference?
Basically this: Historical authenticity is more soft-ish and about being faithful to the time period being portrayed and historical accuracy is more hardcore and about being faithful to the historical facts.
Think about a historical film about WWII - it can be historically authentic in terms of the props and setting, but not entirely historically accurate in terms of the events or persons depicted.
A historically authentic film would use accurate costumes, weapons, and tactics of the time period, while a historically accurate film would furthermore depict the actual events and people involved in the battle as accurately as possible.
So in other words: it is possible for something to be historically authentic and historically inaccurate at the same time. Enlisted might be historically inaccurate in several respects but still convey a sense of authenticity or realism.
However, even if it’s possible for something to be historically authentic and historically inaccurate at the same time, the degree to which this is acceptable or desirable will always depend on the context and purpose of the work in question.
In a historical game like Enlisted the developers may choose to incorporate fictional or anachronistic elements for creative or gameplay reasons. It can detract from its historical authenticity, but it does not necessarily contradict the games’ message of aiming to be overall historical authentic.
But like in general, the acceptability of inaccuracies and anachronisms in Enlisted will depend on the expectations of the audience. Some people may be more forgiving than others.
So what does the audience wants?
I guess it’s more important to ask what game Enlisted want to be?
Enlisted emphasis on historical authenticity suggests that the developers have taken care to create a game that is faithful to the historical period and context being portrayed, which could appeal to players who are interested in the history of World War II or who value historical accuracy in their entertainment.
Maybe that was the target audience from the beginning?
Maybe it still is the target audience. Maybe not. My guess is the latter; that things have changed in the meantime.
Does it matter?
I guess time will tell.
Conclusion:
If Enlisted aims to be historically accurate like they claimed in this video then I would say they failed.
If Enlisted aims to be historically authentic I would say they succeeded.
For the record, I’m, not a historian but I have a master’s degree in intellectual history (also known as history of ideas) for what is worth. Historiography and historical methodology were a part of what I was doing.
Priorities.
