The Assassins and Templars are Idiots
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Must. Resist. Pro-anarchy. Counter-arguement. HRRRRK!barbzilla said:
GAH! NO USE! I'm not necessarily an anarchist, but an anarcho-capitalist. Which is fun and different from plain old boring anarchy and has books about it. Very short version: no government, everyone's individual rights are protected by insurance companies, capitalism is free of cronyism without a gov to hold their hand when they screw up so everything is pro-business and actually about success by being better. I believe this could work, but the world can't simply JUMP into this kind of society, especially not the USA.
On topic, based on what I got from the Assassin's and the Sons of Liberty themselves is that, as other people have said here, their ideology far more fits in with libertarianism. On the surface I'm a libertarian myself because if anarchy can't be achieved, at least libertarianism does still have a chance. Plus I don't get stones thrown at me for saying anything nice about anarchy. But the founding fathers, they were profoundly libertarian. Minimized government, freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of crapiness. Wait I think I got part of that wrong...
Not quite. The French Revolution was directly responsible for the rise of Napoleon. Without him, the Latin American and Haitian Revolutions would have never happened. The Louisiana Territory would never have been sold to the US. The ideals of the French Revolution- liberty, equality- might never have spread throughout the world if it never happened. Without the need to press-gang American sailors, the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened. Without Prussia's gains at the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Germany might never have unified, and the World Wars might never have happened.freakonaleash said:
Well, I would have used "The Keepers" as the name of this neutral, observant, balance-keeping third party, but I suppose those guys lost rights to the title of "Team Sensible" about halfway through Deadly Shadows.
Socially perhaps. Democrats tend to be a bit more favored towards big governemnt controlling things, but alot more allowing of social choice and the republicans go on and on about freedom from government intervention and control but if anyone wants to get married to a member of the opposite sex or doesn't want to live in a theocratic state all that freedom stuff comes crashing down. I would compare it more to the Libertarians vs the Communists. Or perhaps Anarchist vs Totalitarians but same basic idea.CaspianRoach said:
I would vouch for Desmond's bloodline to be that third party Yahtzee is talking about.
I think that the writers of Assassins Creed are well aware that both the Assassins and Templars are idiots, and the resultant message will be 'let's work together'.
Considering the fact that Haytham is a Templar, and obviously a very high ranking one who gets shit done. I definitely wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that Desmond's grandparents were Templar's who got Abstergo started.
The world doesn't care about America's war on independence because no-one else learns about it. It's not relevant to anyone else except Britain and maybe mexico.
I'm assuming the war of independence is British colonies fighting off England/Britain. I'm not even sure because we don't learn about it in England. I learnt about Henry VIII 6 wives and how he killed them , i learnt about Ancient Egypt but not about America's war of independence against us or Napoleon.
Thus when watching Bill and Ted's excellent adventure or National Treasure there's a lot of references that I probably don't get.
I don't even have a point I thought I should just add something
I'm assuming the war of independence is British colonies fighting off England/Britain. I'm not even sure because we don't learn about it in England. I learnt about Henry VIII 6 wives and how he killed them , i learnt about Ancient Egypt but not about America's war of independence against us or Napoleon.
Thus when watching Bill and Ted's excellent adventure or National Treasure there's a lot of references that I probably don't get.
I don't even have a point I thought I should just add something
Ive always wanted an ac set during the russian revolution. Great architecture, lots of people dying in mysterious ways and a great period for AC's philosophical themes .Also ubisoft has the fucking roots for it all from their own comic books .NinjaDeathSlap said:
Revolutionary 'Merica might have worked if they showed people standing up, get inspired and fight for their rights, I don't care in its historicly accurate or not, sounds way more interesting than some guy going around random battlefields .You never feel like Connor knew what he was doing, he just goes places and fiths other people's battles for them .It never feels like a journey, the story doesn't live up to this epic trailer .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph9jn5kRo9k
Pretty much all the effecting moments are here .
Sorry, my interest in history has been primarily military in nature since before I could read.Falseprophet said:
Sound like things have changed. All I had to deal with in school was about the French-Canadians, Indians and Metis. The Red River Rebellion occupied a massive part of it, or at the every least, stuck in my head. Sure has left me pissed off that Riel has now become a folk hero in our countries typical manner of making heroes out of enemies of the British Empire and vice versa.
Beyond that in social studies was learning about places like Nigeria as I rolled my eyes and kept wondering why we weren't studying the history relevant to a Western nations: European, Roman and Greek history.
I'm born and raised BC, btw.
The Americans introduced those ideals. Do you even realize that the French took inspiration from their War of Independence?BlackStar42 said:
Their Revolution was the blackest of black marks on human history. It destroyed the foundations of Europe's cultural that took centuries to create and left nothing but Socialism and bloodshed in it's wake. You can thank that bloodthirsty mob for all the following revolutions and wars in history that killed more people in the last century than in entirety of human history combined.
The Latin American Wars of Independence had more in practicality to do with Britain and the Royal Navy than anything else. It was directly in the interests of Britain to break up Spain's colonial empire and open up new markets. But I will give you one thing, the meaningless cycle of bloodshed and infighting that resulted from it was surely inspired by the French.
Also, 1812 had little to nothing to do with impressment, it was merely the casus belli used by the hawks in the US to do what they'd been itching for decades to do: Complete their ultimate goal of conquering British North America and make their country the only power north of the tropics on the continent.
I don't think Connor's not exemplifying the views of the assassins was poor character development. I think this is an actual exploration by the developers into the cause. He's meant to not think what his actions really mean. He's meant to have an inner conflict over who he should be helping, what will result in the better outcome, between ideals and reality. The Templars are also meant to be sympathetic. They all exemplify a different aspect of the Templar ideology, and some of those make you legitimately question Connor's actions. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find AC3 more ideologically challenging than either of the other two. AC2-era probably had the largest share of Templars who were just dicks and needed to die, and the fight against oppression and the motive of revenge were both apparent. In AC3 there's a bit of confusion over who wants what, Haytham in particular makes a good point about how the Patriots are using Connor and don't necessarily uphold Connor's ideals or those of the assassins. Even in gameplay, patriots are just as ready to give you a shove with their rifle as any British soldier, and you don't even feel welcome in the forts that you liberate. AC3 is about questioning what and who is right, and whether either side's ideal state could ever be achieved.
That said, the Illuminati or Freemasons. Shady force controlling things behind the scenes, no-one's sure what they really do? Come on. Although, they seem to already have established the Templars as being in every nook and cranny of control.
That said, the Illuminati or Freemasons. Shady force controlling things behind the scenes, no-one's sure what they really do? Come on. Although, they seem to already have established the Templars as being in every nook and cranny of control.
First I should state, I am an American, and I love our birth of a nation story..... But I agree with Yahtzee, I mean the French Revolution was what I expected to see as the next game ( and no not because Ubisoft is French) I expected to see it because it was a lot more relevant to the western world as a whole ( yeah I'm pretty sure that China India and Japan could care less about either event)
the whole peasants vs the aristocracy thing was taking place.... That would be prime meat for the Assassins/Templars.... When I first found out that they were doing the US revolution I was dumbfounded..... Couldn't figure out why, other than a large American market for the game.
the whole peasants vs the aristocracy thing was taking place.... That would be prime meat for the Assassins/Templars.... When I first found out that they were doing the US revolution I was dumbfounded..... Couldn't figure out why, other than a large American market for the game.
While it influenced the French revolution, the ideas of the revolution came from Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. These three philosophers introduced political, intellectual and religious tolerance, power division, and people's sovereignity. These ideals became the ideological basis the revolution was based off.beastro said:
The revolution had a lot of factors apart from ideology. The rich bourgeoisie wanted to change the old economic model (mercantilism) for a new one (liberalism), which would give them total freedom to make businesses, buy-sell land and properties and, in short, have economic freedom. While the aristocracy walked around wasting ludicrously huge amounts of money, the peasants had been enduring high taxes, a full decade of famine caused by a climatic phenomena known as "small ice age", and the impopular and stupid decisions of the king.
This revolutionary process would have happened anyway, because it was the anger of the unprivileged, overtaxed and hungry 95% against the privileged, rich and hated 5%, all of it harnessed by the unprivileged rich who wanted less king's involvement in the economy, equality in laws, and political power.
The collosal histeria that followed the revolution caused a lot of bloodshed, and it also destabilized Europe, which caused alot of wars, but it also extended throrough Europe the ideals of the enlightement, giving birth to a new way of making politics, a new society and, in the end, is directly responsible of the way politics areunderstood in the western world.beastro said:
Also, the French revolution was made primarily by rich merchants who wanted an unregulated economy to earn more money, the rise of socialism and proletarian movements had to wait half a century to exist, before the movements were more on the "we lived better before" than on the "we want wealth to be redistributed"
In my opinion, the french revolution would have made for a great game. It was a major turning point in history, marked the start of the transition from absolutist monarchy to more representative government style, destroyed european politics at the time, marked a new era for humanity, most of the action transcurred in one city, a lot of the politics were followed or were about the destruction of buildings or the cutting of heads, leaders rose and fell in a matter of years, and ended with Napoleón taking over Europe.
The Rogue Wolf said:
Right, the French revolution eventually caused these things, but the American revolution caused things that were just as big. The American revolution caused a world war between France, England and Spain. If that world war hadn't happened, what would the world of been like? What about Native Americans? Their lives were drastically changed by this new country. Many latin American countries and leaders, like Zapata, looked to the U.S revolution as a symbol for their own struggle for democracy and used it to rally their people. I'm not saying the French revolution didn't have some far-reaching consequences, but so did the American revolution, which makes it just as good of a point for a story in this time period.BlackStar42 said:
Another name we could call the third group what maintains balance between the Assassins and the Templars is the Keepers..... oh wait, that name is taken already.
You won't find much praise about them from me, looking at things from an Anglo--American perspective. Those who inspired Liberalism in our lands make those on the Continent pale in comparison.
The worst is the latter. For a man who talked about people's sovereignty, his philosophy sure had a lot to do with pushing authoritarianism.
The latter had more to do with it, or rather the stupid decisions of the Bourbons going back to Louis XIV, their quest to become global hegemon and compete with England/Britain. Combine that with chronically poor record keeping and you had the prefect storm.
The deal breaker was the War of Independence: They were already buried in debt and then decided to bury themselves even deeper to get back at Britain for the Seven Years' War. By the time of the Revolution they didn't even know how much they had owing.
With that said, the need to sort out the trouble the Bourbons had created was not worth the trouble France caused Europe and the world.
Yeah, the Revolution was sure the best way to sort all that out. Typical Continental thinking, not gradual and evolutionary like in Britain.
The Enlightenment was already spreading, it did not require senseless war and bloodshed to push it around that destroyed too much of the old order. It could have been gradual, instead it left a sore wound in the heart of Western Civilization.
It's not the way politics are understood in the Anglosphere and I speak as a part of it. To us that moment in history is nothing but a collective disaster.
The germ was there in the murderous behaviour of the masses who even went so far as to kill those who had royal sounding names.