PDA

View Full Version : AC Unity's (Most Likely) Templars



DumbGamerTag94
07-20-2014, 04:52 AM
I've narrowed down a list of Suspects for who I think will make up the French Templars in ACU and their possible roles.

Georges Jacques Danton:
http://www.biografica.info/fotos/DAN2.png

One of the most influential people of the Revolution. Danton was the head of the Cordeliers Club. Which was one of the most radical revolutionary/pro-republican/anti-royalist parties of the early part of the French Revolution. He played a major role in the creation of the Republican mechanisms of the New French Government. Was partially behind the creation of the mob that resulted in the Champs de Mars Massacre. Was possibly at the head of the uprising in 1792 that removed the King from power in the March on the Tuileries Palace(resulting in the capture and beheading of Louis XVI), thus creating the First French Republic with Danton as Minister of Justice. He is accused of directing the September Massacres(where over 1000 prisoners either Austrian POWs or suspected Counter-Revolutionaries were killed in fear that the Austrians were winning the war). Became a major member of the National Assembly. Became President of the Committee of Public Safety. He sued for peace between the radical right and left political factions, and opposed war with Austria and others and tried to negotiate peace. Instigated the insurrection of 31 May- 2 June 1793 which removed the Girondists from the government and left his more radical parties and allies to seize full control of the Government. Advocated the use of the Terror, but very strongly emphisised that it should be used sparingly as it could be a double edged sword. He is the one who proposed the Committee of public safety have Dictatorial powers, as he sought to regain order and stability, and did the most to create a functioning government and curb anarchy. He removed himself from government before giving the Committee full power so as not to seem to be seizing power for himself. After the reign of terror began Danton quickly shifts to the more moderate political Right("One days Radicals are the Moderates Tomorrow"). He opposed the excessive use of terror and criticized Robespierre. For this opposition to the Committee he was ultimately accused of counter revolutionary tendencies and corruption(neither of which is proven to this day) and executed by guillotine in 1794. His last words called for Robespierre to meet the same fate as him(a man he never liked, but was a former ally)

Suspected Role: Grand Master of the French Templars

Reason: He is present or instigated almost every major event of the French Revolution which seems to me like the work of a Templar grand Master. He also has connections to most of the Major Radical Revolutionaries, Marat, Robespierre, Desmoulins, etc. He also pursues passionately a fully Republican France and execution of the Royalty, which leaves room for him and his to take power. Pursues Control, Stability, and opposed the unnecessary deaths of civilians and wars with foreign powers(things that were fairly destabilizing and un-templary).

I feel he will be a devout Templar and share a morality similar to Haytham, but seek power similarly to Rodrigo Borgia by manipulating events and personally getting involved in taking power. So I think we will get the best of both worlds out of him as a Grand Master.


Camille Desmoulins:
http://www.nndb.com/people/480/000097189/desmoulins-1-sized.jpg

Desmoulins was a major politician and Journalist during the French Rev. Most promanantly one of the main journalist responsible for stirring up the mob that resulted in the storming of the Bastille. He was Extremely close with Danton and his closest political ally. He was executed in 1794 the same day as Danton.

Suspected Role: I feel that Desmoulins will essentally be Danton's right hand man, kind of the way Charles Lee was to Haytham.


Maximilian Robespierre:
http://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/robespierre.jpg

Robespierre was one of the most radical figures of the revolution. Leader of the infamous radical Jacobin Club. He was a major player on the same team as Danton, only their views were very different, but in the early revolution they often found themselves on the same side. Their alliance fell apart when the Leftist parties removed their opposition and Danton's followers became the new Right. Robespierre was THE MAIN figure during the Reign of Terror. Heading the Committee of Public Safety and essentially becoming the de-facto Dictator of France. He was the main person behind the creation of the Cult of the Supreme Being, and many felt he was trying to play himself off as a god or profit in this religion. He was known as "The Incorruptible" and was probably the most Fervent Revolutionaries and his opinions, methods, and ideas gradually became more and more radical and violent as time passed to achieve his vision for France. Ultimately the Reign of Terror would be his downfall. Many sympathizing with Danton's views, when Danton was executed it was not long before Robespierre was turned on and himself executed.

Suspected Role: I feel Robespierre will not actually be a Templar, but instead the Leader of a 3rd Faction. This may have something to do with Juno, due to the cult of the supreme being possibly even a sage, or knowing of sages, but he certainly IMO will be the Leader of the Radical faction, that will not be made up of templars. Either this or he is a Templar that eventually turns on his master due to infighting within the order.

I feel he will be a non-Assassin-Templar character, but will be sided with Danton out of necessity, and turn on him during the reign of Terror. At that point in the story we may see a shift from just hunting Templars, to an emphisis on "the dangers of Radicalism" as we have been told is one of ACU's themes.

I also think we will be the ones to shoot him in the Jaw. As he and his allies were all found either dead or with what appeared to be attempted suicides....but in AC's version we may be the ones to kill and wound them. Perhaps to silence him so he cant talk his way out of execution(which was a real possibility as he was arguably the greatest orator of the Revolution)


Jean Paul Marat:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Jean-Paul_Marat_portre.jpg

Marat was a major political figure and journalist during the french rev. He shares many similarities to Desmoulins as far as career. However his views were more radical and Danton often considered his work more exaggerations. His paper was probably the most fiery of the radical revolutionaries. He played a role in the fervor that led to the march on the Tuileries Palace. Marat himself was assassinated by a brave woman in 1793 while taking a medicinal bath for a skin condition he suffered from. After his death he became a Saint like Figure to the radical revolutionaries and was a martyr for their cause with his image and words popping up everywhere.

Suspected Role: Major instigator and powerful figure, probably will play a role in creating the initial revolutionary chaos along side Desmoulins. He very well could be a Templar, but due to Danton's historical disfavor of Marat's style and exaggeration he could well be a member of Robespierre's possible more radical 3rd faction. However i feel he may be a Templar placed within that camp to diversify and strengthen Templar chances at gaining control(just as templars have always been on both sides of every conflict to pursue control through whichever side is victorious)

We probably will clear the way for, and protect his assassin, who most likely is a member of Arno's French Assassin group.


Anyway that is my predictions for now.

Any other theories? Do you agree with the list? Any more to add?

Think and discuss!

JustPlainQuirky
07-20-2014, 05:06 AM
Really good read. I'll update my thoughts in a bit as it is late but this is great. :o

LoyalACFan
07-20-2014, 05:58 AM
Seems like sound logic, though I'm not really well-versed on the history of the French Revolution. Danton, Robespierre, Marat, Corday, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette are the only figures from that era I know much about. I will say, though, that there was a screenshot of a middle-aged woman labeled "Grand Templar" or something in the IGN Making Of video, so I wouldn't rule her out as the ringleader. Hard to say whether she's fictional or not; after Haytham it seems they've loosened their insistence on using real figures for our targets. Which can actually be a good thing, as it prevents spoilers stemming from the historical death date of the character.

DumbGamerTag94
07-20-2014, 06:25 AM
@LoyalACFan

I went and searched through the old threads and found the one you were talking about. I couldn't quite remember myself what the caption was for the woman.

This woman is a Templar. In the box we can read 'Woman_Templar', don't know if just a normal model, Grand Master or some random Templar chick. Whatever, she looks awesome:
(I would have attached the picture but I can't seem to copy it here and can't find it on the web)

Apparently it just says "Woman_Templar". So nothing saying she's a grand master of even suggesting she is. If I had to guess she may very well have something to do with the Women's march on Versailles. That would be my best guess and the most logical place for a female Templar to be a participant/target.

I do suspect there will be a reasonable amount of fictional characters for Templars due to the fact that most of the real life people were either executed by guillotine or have well documented assassins. I think this woman may be one of them. As with the officer from the single player demo. I'm sure we'll also get to del with a few of the lesser known/less documented/possibly fictional people too. Like the Marquis from the Co-op gameplay video(idk if he really existed or not). But anyway I'm still convinced our main story driving bad guys will be actual historic figures though. There's just so many and some of them like Robespierre are just so downright cold and evil! It'd be a missed opportunity if they didn't.

@Mayrice

Thank you! I'm glad you liked it. I'm interested to hear what other people think or who else may make the list. I'm also thinking about maybe making another thread with my top picks for Assassins and their Allies.

Xstantin
07-20-2014, 07:14 AM
Nice list! :D
I actually thought about it today myself. My prediction is a bit crazy I guess, but I thought what if Jacques Necker, the finance minister of Louis XVI who actually advised the king against spending and supported the representation of the common people could be one of 'mild' Templars with good intentions working to calm and contain the masses before the Revolution broke (in a way similar to Pitcarn who was a good guy in a bad situation).

LoyalACFan
07-20-2014, 07:23 AM
Nice list! :D
I actually thought about it today myself. My prediction is a bit crazy I guess, but I thought what if Jacques Necker, the finance minister of Louis XVI who actually advised the king against spending and supported the representation of the common people could be one of 'mild' Templars with good intentions working to calm and contain the masses before the Revolution broke (in a way similar to Pitcarn who was a good guy in a bad situation).

That actually sounds pretty cool, not crazy at all. Only problem is he died ten years after the game ends, so if he's in the game as a Templar he must not be one of Arno's targets (or I guess he could survive, though that would be hard to explain... Rogers survived Edward's killing blow, but the only thing that saved him from an immediate second attempt was that he fled across the Atlantic. Necker would presumably still be in France, or at least Europe, so what would save him?).

Xstantin
07-20-2014, 07:27 AM
Yeah, I looked at his death date afterwards myself. It's just for now it's been almost a tradition to have at least one unexpected Templar. I thought somebody like him could make a cut.

LoyalACFan
07-20-2014, 07:37 AM
@LoyalACFan

I went and searched through the old threads and found the one you were talking about. I couldn't quite remember myself what the caption was for the woman.

(I would have attached the picture but I can't seem to copy it here and can't find it on the web)

Apparently it just says "Woman_Templar". So nothing saying she's a grand master of even suggesting she is. If I had to guess she may very well have something to do with the Women's march on Versailles. That would be my best guess and the most logical place for a female Templar to be a participant/target.

I do suspect there will be a reasonable amount of fictional characters for Templars due to the fact that most of the real life people were either executed by guillotine or have well documented assassins. I think this woman may be one of them. As with the officer from the single player demo. I'm sure we'll also get to del with a few of the lesser known/less documented/possibly fictional people too. Like the Marquis from the Co-op gameplay video(idk if he really existed or not). But anyway I'm still convinced our main story driving bad guys will be actual historic figures though. There's just so many and some of them like Robespierre are just so downright cold and evil! It'd be a missed opportunity if they didn't..

Ah, okay, so the woman in question is probably not our main target. Gotcha. As for the guys in the demos... I suspect they might not actually be our real targets. AC3's E3 demo target was completely fabricated, though he did show up in the final game in a much smaller role. Captain Xavier and the Marquis were probably just invented to avoid spoiling our actual targets.

Although I have a suspicion that the Brotherhood co-op missions may feature exclusively fictional characters, so as to avoid any timeline discrepancies. Presumably you can play these missions with friends who are at different points in the story than you, so you might be in 1794 while your partner is is 1789. They probably wouldn't want to include real targets whose deaths could be linked to a specific date. They kinda faced this problem once already in AC2; you could complete assassination contracts and the Palazzo Medici DLC long after Lorenzo was dead.

DumbGamerTag94
07-21-2014, 04:47 AM
Nice list! :D
I actually thought about it today myself. My prediction is a bit crazy I guess, but I thought what if Jacques Necker, the finance minister of Louis XVI who actually advised the king against spending and supported the representation of the common people could be one of 'mild' Templars with good intentions working to calm and contain the masses before the Revolution broke (in a way similar to Pitcarn who was a good guy in a bad situation).

Good idea. Only it falls apart a bit with the death date being so much later as Loyal pointed out. And he seemed to be working to really try and help the people of France and was very popular for it, and he also had no involvement in any of the revolutionary craziness after he left his position as finance minister. So I doubt he'd be a Templar. He is most likely just a normal guy.

If anything I would think he may be an ally of the Assassins possibly.

Farlander1991
07-21-2014, 07:36 AM
Hard to say whether she's fictional or not; after Haytham it seems they've loosened their insistence on using real figures for our targets.

Despite their insistence on using historically accurate targets, half of AC1 targets were fictional or just loosely based on some individuals, so AC has always had fictional element in their targets.

I'd say that AC3 is the one that used non-historical targets the least, Haytham being the only one of them.

Jexx21
07-21-2014, 07:46 AM
Abu'l Naquod wasn't even based off of anyone at all. His name actually means something like "Father of Wealth"

Xstantin
07-21-2014, 07:47 AM
A few non-historical targets will be perfectly fine imo as long as the game doesn't get saturated with multiplayer characters (Revelations did it in a way).

Farlander1991
07-21-2014, 08:07 AM
Abu'l Naquod wasn't even based off of anyone at all. His name actually means something like "Father of Wealth"

Yeah, I think Tamir was not based on anyone either. Majd Addin and Jubair were loosely based on some people. Not sure about Talal, but I think he's fully fictional as well (have to reresearch about this). But in AC1 pretty much only the Crusader side consists of actual historical figures - Garnier, Sibrand, William, Robert.


A few non-historical targets will be perfectly fine imo as long as the game doesn't get saturated with multiplayer characters (Revelations did it in a way).

ACU won't have multiplayer though (besides co-op), so no multiplayer characters in single-player.

Xstantin
07-21-2014, 08:22 AM
My bad, I meant coop and got carried with Revelations comparison. Still, I wonder how Ubi gonna make it work in coop since it's separate. Some of the targets probably are going to be fictional (at least logically let's say everyone plays at different point in the storyline, although it might be a situation where you're magically transported into a different time). I haven't looked up the E3 demo marquis, so I don't know whether he actually existed.

joelsantos24
07-21-2014, 10:10 AM
(...)

ACU won't have multiplayer though (besides co-op), so no multiplayer characters in single-player.
So, no conventional (competitive) multiplayer in Unity? I read that the co-operative missions in Unity, run alongside the (single-player) story missions. So I assume the co-op missions aren't really part of the story missions themselves, but the actual multiplayer experience?

LoyalACFan
07-21-2014, 10:25 AM
Despite their insistence on using historically accurate targets, half of AC1 targets were fictional or just loosely based on some individuals, so AC has always had fictional element in their targets.

I'd say that AC3 is the one that used non-historical targets the least, Haytham being the only one of them.

Well, yeah, but previously the fictional ones were pretty minor, or used for an explicit purpose within the story that couldn't be filled by a real figure (e.g. Uberto). Haytham was a pretty significant departure, being the only main antagonist who wasn't even loosely based on a real person.


So, no conventional (competitive) multiplayer in Unity? I read that the co-operative missions in Unity, run alongside the (single-player) story missions. So I assume the co-op missions aren't really part of the story missions themselves, but the actual multiplayer experience?

There will be no competitive multiplayer. It's all in one map; there will be solo mission markers alongside mission markers for assassinations you can do with friends.

joelsantos24
07-21-2014, 10:49 AM
There will be no competitive multiplayer. It's all in one map; there will be solo mission markers alongside mission markers for assassinations you can do with friends.
I think I saw that in the reveal gameplay trailer. I take it by your words then, that there won't be two distinct game modes (single or story and co-op) after all, and co-op is essentially embedded into the single-player experience?

Farlander1991
07-21-2014, 10:56 AM
I think I saw that in the reveal gameplay trailer. I take it by your words then, that there won't be two distinct game modes (single or story and co-op) after all, and co-op is essentially embedded into the single-player experience?

Yes. That's one of the reasons they call it Unity, how it unites the single player and multiplayer open world experience in one.

joelsantos24
07-21-2014, 12:08 PM
Yes. That's one of the reasons they call it Unity, how it unites the single player and multiplayer open world experience in one.
I suppose it's not gonna be like Blacklist then, where, mandatory co-op or solo missions aside, you can choose carrying a mission solo or co-operatively? The co-op missions will only be playable with friends.Sounds cool.

I still haven't dwelved into Unity all that much, I don't know when I'm gonna buy my PS4, so it's not relevant, yet. But that can give rise to all kinds of problems, it's not gonna be like the gameplay reveal trailers, where experienced game developers show the masses how to master co-op missions. You're in the middle of the story, the next mission is co-op, so what? You'll search for friends to play those along with you? Only players currently playing that exact part of the story, will be able to join, right? Sounds way too complicated. I'll like to see how they'll pull it off.

m4r-k7
07-21-2014, 12:11 PM
All co-op missions can be done solo. The main story missions willl not be co-op. The co-op mode is for "Brotherhood Missions" which you find around the map (as seen in the E3 demo when he went into the tavern and a quest called Austrian Heritage or something popped up)
I don't think these co-op missions are story-driven

Farlander1991
07-21-2014, 12:13 PM
I suppose it's not gonna be like Blacklist then, where, mandatory co-op or solo missions aside, you can choose carrying a mission solo or co-operatively? The co-op missions will only be playable with friends.Sounds cool.

The co-op missions are solo-able, but since they're made for co-op, they're (supposedly) harder in solo mode.


You're in the middle of the story, the next mission is co-op, so what?

Main campaign and co-op are separate mission branches. Co-op is like Assassination Contracts or Templar Hunt missions, a separate branch of them, not directly connected to the main story progress.


You'll search for friends to play those along with you?

There are taverns all over the city which act as social hubs. I'm not sure how they work exactly yet (there hasn't been too much information regarding them other than they're social hubs used for multiplayer), but judging from the demos you can join your friends' in-progress missions from there.


Only players currently playing that exact part of the story, will be able to join, right?

Since co-op missions aren't connected to the main story-line, that shouldn't be the case.

joelsantos24
07-21-2014, 01:19 PM
The co-op missions are solo-able, but since they're made for co-op, they're (supposedly) harder in solo mode.
Yeah, it makes sense. I'm not saying I'm not probably gonna try to go solo on one of these missions, but it does take most of the fun out of it.



Main campaign and co-op are separate mission branches. Co-op is like Assassination Contracts or Templar Hunt missions, a separate branch of them, not directly connected to the main story progress.
Ok. I was mixing the two, then. I remember that, in the gameplay reveal trailer, amidst the co-op mission, Arno went into an alley and immediately got the indication of a crime occured inside a house. He got inside the house, and the player recorded the mission into the log, in order to come back to it later. So, how does this work then, exactly? The co-op missions aren't, at all, tied to the story/single-player mode? And is the story mode, composed solely of single-player missions? Then, are there two distinct game modes, or not? This aspect of the game is incredibly confusing to me.



There are taverns all over the city which act as social hubs. I'm not sure how they work exactly yet (there hasn't been too much information regarding them other than they're social hubs used for multiplayer), but judging from the demos you can join your friends' in-progress missions from there.
That makes sense, cool.



Since co-op missions aren't connected to the main story-line, that shouldn't be the case.
This is directly tied to my questions above. So, there are indeed two different game modes, story mode and co-op?

Farlander1991
07-21-2014, 01:30 PM
I can't say how co-op exactly works, and there are a few questions I'm interested in myself, but, generally speaking:

Single player and co-op are not separate modes. Co-op missions (called Brotherhood missions) are quests that you get in the single player open world, just like you'd get an Assassination Contract in a single player game, for example.

Supposedly, when you take the mission, the map updates with all the relevant NPCs and guards and everything just like it would for an assassination contract. Now, since you can be joined by players at any time, I think the purposes of the tavern is for the joining player to get the same state of the world as the 'host' player seamlessly and would get the state of the world as the host does, basically to synchronize with each other (there's an unanswered question what happens to stuff like chests, loot, and everything, but my theory is that with the exception of the co-op content, single-player content like chests and everything is unique to each player).

If you have played Watch_Dogs, imagine Watch_dogs multiplayer, but without teleportation and loading screens and with a PvE rather than PvP goals.

joelsantos24
07-21-2014, 01:34 PM
All co-op missions can be done solo. The main story missions willl not be co-op. The co-op mode is for "Brotherhood Missions" which you find around the map (as seen in the E3 demo when he went into the tavern and a quest called Austrian Heritage or something popped up)
I don't think these co-op missions are story-driven
Oh... Ok, I think I finally understand. So there are two different modes, although, both united in the same map, so to speak. But in the end, you still have the two distinct aspects: the main story/single-player missions and the Brotherhood missions. My first impression of it in the reveal trailer, was breathtaking, and I can't wait to play it. :cool:


I can't say how co-op exactly works, and there are a few questions I'm interested in myself, but, generally speaking:

Single player and co-op are not separate modes. Co-op missions (called Brotherhood missions) are quests that you get in the single player open world, just like you'd get an Assassination Contract in a single player game, for example.

Supposedly, when you take the mission, the map updates with all the relevant NPCs and guards and everything just like it would for an assassination contract. Now, since you can be joined by players at any time, I think the purposes of the tavern is for the joining player to get the same state of the world as the 'host' player seamlessly and would get the state of the world as the host does, basically to synchronize with each other (there's an unanswered question what happens to stuff like chests, loot, and everything, but my theory is that with the exception of the co-op content, single-player content like chests and everything is unique to each player).

If you have played Watch_Dogs, imagine Watch_dogs multiplayer, but without teleportation and loading screens and with a PvE rather than PvP goals.
Got it. That actually answered most of my questions. Thanks!

Megas_Doux
07-21-2014, 03:31 PM
Good thread!!!!


A few non-historical targets will be perfectly fine imo as long as the game doesn't get saturated with multiplayer characters (Revelations did it in a way).

AC I had a pretty decent amount of non historical targets, or least not that accurate. I know the setting helped, but to be honest with you, I would like that formula to return, Why???? Because I just do not want the "oh historical stuff just because" AC III syndrome ever again.

Farlander1991
07-21-2014, 03:48 PM
Because I just do not want the "oh historical stuff just because" AC III syndrome ever again.

Honestly, I think the historical targets of ACIII were perfectly incorporated both in the prologue and the later story of ACIII (plot-wise, that is, so not counting the sudden character shift of Charles Lee). It's the historical cameos that were really the problem of ACIII's historical syndrome. Robert Newman (who we don't see or hear about beyond our introduction to him), John Hancock (who Connor even mentions in the death speech to Pitcairn but no idea who the **** that is because we've seen him only once), John Parker and James Barrett, Admiral de Grasse, basically all those people who really appear 'just because history'.

AC4 cast, for example, is like 75% historical, but it does a much better job at incorporating the things together and make it all flow. Characters all have set up and resolution, even such minor ones as Chamberlain (to my knowledge not historical) and Burgess/Cockram (historical), and if you make a scheme of when the characters appear, are mentioned, and are active (I did that kind of chart on paper once, but lost it), it all looks very cool and well-thought out, there's no overabundance of active characters at any given point in time, and they stay somewhat relevant even during inactive parts. While AC3 just throws everybody at you whenever. Yes, historically accurate, but no flow at all.

joelsantos24
07-21-2014, 04:12 PM
Honestly, I think the historical targets of ACIII were perfectly incorporated both in the prologue and the later story of ACIII (plot-wise, that is, so not counting the sudden character shift of Charles Lee). It's the historical cameos that were really the problem of ACIII's historical syndrome. Robert Newman (who we don't see or hear about beyond our introduction to him), John Hancock (who Connor even mentions in the death speech to Pitcairn but no idea who the **** that is because we've seen him only once), John Parker and James Barrett, Admiral de Grasse, basically all those people who really appear 'just because history'.

AC4 cast, for example, is like 75% historical, but it does a much better job at incorporating the things together and make it all flow. Characters all have set up and resolution, even such minor ones as Chamberlain (to my knowledge not historical) and Burgess/Cockram (historical), and if you make a scheme of when the characters appear, are mentioned, and are active (I did that kind of chart on paper once, but lost it), it all looks very cool and well-thought out, there's no overabundance of active characters at any given point in time, and they stay somewhat relevant even during inactive parts. While AC3 just throws everybody at you whenever. Yes, historically accurate, but no flow at all.
Yes, that's pretty much it. I honestly never even thought about those characters in Assassin's 3 again. It makes you think about the relevance of it all, or at least their incorporation into the game. In my opinion, it was all done with a contextualization purpose, but it makes it mostly irrelevant all the same. It didn't bother me all that much, to be honest, but anyway...

If you ask me, in a historical vs. non-historical characters frame, I prefer historical characters, but chosen carefully and wisely, of course.

Megas_Doux
07-21-2014, 04:30 PM
Honestly, I think the historical targets of ACIII were perfectly incorporated both in the prologue and the later story of ACIII (plot-wise, that is, so not counting the sudden character shift of Charles Lee). It's the historical cameos that were really the problem of ACIII's historical syndrome. Robert Newman (who we don't see or hear about beyond our introduction to him), John Hancock (who Connor even mentions in the death speech to Pitcairn but no idea who the **** that is because we've seen him only once), John Parker and James Barrett, Admiral de Grasse, basically all those people who really appear 'just because history'.

AC4 cast, for example, is like 75% historical, but it does a much better job at incorporating the things together and make it all flow. Characters all have set up and resolution, even such minor ones as Chamberlain (to my knowledge not historical) and Burgess/Cockram (historical), and if you make a scheme of when the characters appear, are mentioned, and are active (I did that kind of chart on paper once, but lost it), it all looks very cool and well-thought out, there's no overabundance of active characters at any given point in time, and they stay somewhat relevant even during inactive parts. While AC3 just throws everybody at you whenever. Yes, historically accurate, but no flow at all.

I agree with you,partially.

Whereas I have NO problem with Hickey, Church, Lee, Johnson, Pitcairn and the target from the naval missions, the amount of historical "build up" that feels shoehorned in AC III is just too much. Connor being present in the continental congress TWICE? Connor commanding troops during the battles of concord and lexington? Being Revere´s personal driver? etc etc.

Almost all the targets of Damascus and Jerusalem are fictional, which if you ask me, allows all the staff more freedom and creativity creativity in terms of writing the story and designing the missions.

I am having concerns in the regards of Unity repeating ACIII´s mistakes again, however Arno being present in the Estates-General or National Assembly makes MUCH more sense than Connor in the Continental Congress, though.

Jexx21
07-21-2014, 05:38 PM
Honestly, I think the historical targets of ACIII were perfectly incorporated both in the prologue and the later story of ACIII (plot-wise, that is, so not counting the sudden character shift of Charles Lee). It's the historical cameos that were really the problem of ACIII's historical syndrome. Robert Newman (who we don't see or hear about beyond our introduction to him), John Hancock (who Connor even mentions in the death speech to Pitcairn but no idea who the **** that is because we've seen him only once), John Parker and James Barrett, Admiral de Grasse, basically all those people who really appear 'just because history'.

AC4 cast, for example, is like 75% historical, but it does a much better job at incorporating the things together and make it all flow. Characters all have set up and resolution, even such minor ones as Chamberlain (to my knowledge not historical) and Burgess/Cockram (historical), and if you make a scheme of when the characters appear, are mentioned, and are active (I did that kind of chart on paper once, but lost it), it all looks very cool and well-thought out, there's no overabundance of active characters at any given point in time, and they stay somewhat relevant even during inactive parts. While AC3 just throws everybody at you whenever. Yes, historically accurate, but no flow at all.

I still need to argue and say that Charles Lee didn't really have a character shift, he was trying to manipulate Connor but kept misjudging how to manipulate him.

joelsantos24
07-21-2014, 05:56 PM
Manipulating Connor?

DumbGamerTag94
07-22-2014, 04:05 AM
Ok so I've done a little bit of research and I've come up with a few other possible templars.

Honre Gabriel Riqueti, comte de Mirabeau.

http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/sycomore/biographies/photo/jpg/11765.jpg

Mirabeau was a prominent Noble prior to the Revolution. He was one of the biggest figures in the early stages of the revolution and presided as President of the National Assembly. He preferred to maintain a Constitutional Monarchy. Was a member of the Jacobin Club(but was criticized for being one in name only). He was played a large role in drafting the declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen. He would slowly be pushed away from the Jacobin, and remain close with the Royal Court. He attempted several times to form an alliance with Lafayette, but he did not share Mirabeau's same views. Mirabeau died in 1791. He was despised in death after revelations came out that he had been in the pay of the monarchy and in frequent correspondence with foreign nations.

Suspected Role: Mirabeau seems to me to be a possible fit for the Templars possibly joining them to avoid his fairly notorious debts and advance his station and prestige. I believe Mirabeau being a Noble himself will eventually turn on the Templars due to his attachment and loyalty to the Royals. I feel like he will go along with the Templar goals at first. Trying to form Republican style government, but turn more to the Constitutional Monarchists camp out of guilt and personal interest. Thus i think he will be turned on by his templar brothers as Robespierre and others did not care for him, and neither did the opposite side like Lafayette. So he will essentially become a man without a party, hated by both the Assassins(as from the trailers i conclude they dislike the royalty) and the Templars(who will most likely advocate Radical Republicanism to grab absolute power). So i believe he may be killed either by Arno or the Templars themselves....or an attempt by both. Mirabeau if a Templar would probably be a Benjamin Church like figure who is hated by both sides for turning coat and holding true to his own loyalties. It is speculated that Mirabeau could have been assassinated by poison.


Jean-Baptiste Drouet

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Jean_Baptiste_Drouet.jpg/220px-Jean_Baptiste_Drouet.jpg

Drouet was a former french soldier. He was the one who recognized the King and Queen during the Flight to Varennes and turned them in. Afterwords he went on to be a member of the National Assembly and was one of the most fervent radicals. Member of the Jacobin Club. Voted for the death of the king and use of Terror. He later was accused in a scandal, and escaped to switzerland. He then went on to oppose Horatio Nelson's attempt to attack the island of Tenerife. Traveled to India. After his return he rejoined french politics and became a promanent Neo-Jacobin in 1797. Held a position in the government of Napoleon's First Empire. After the fall of Napoleon he went into hiding living in obscurity by an assumed name in France until his death in 1824.

Suspected Role: I think Drouet will probably be featured in Unity with the flight to Varennes and his infamy in that event. And possibly his role as a Jacobin will be explored and his exile to Switzerland. Possibly even his role in the rise of Napoleon if the game goes as far as 1799. He may be a member of the possible 3rd faction of Robespierre which i believe would exist be it a radical branch of Templars or something seperate entirely. I think this faction will include Robespierre and his brother, Napoleon, Drouet, and a possibility of Marat.


Jacques Renee Hebert

http://www.nndb.com/people/990/000095705/hebert-1.jpg

Major pamphleteer and journalist of the French Revolution. Present at the Champs des Mars Massacre along with Danton and Desmoulins. Was a key figure in the campaign to deChristianize France and often attacked the clergy in his writings. Known as one of the "Enraged Ones" Avid supporter of beginning the Reign of Terror. Was a member of the same party as Danton and was killed by guillotine on the same day in 1794.

Suspected Role: Instigatior at Champs des Mars, and Templar agent under Danton's leadership and doesn't belong to Robespierres faction(be it within the Templars or otherwise) but supporter and co-creator of the Reign of Terror.


Bernard-Renee de Launay

http://i.imgur.com/eaPS1Bd.jpg

de Launay was the Governor of the Bastille during the Storming in 1789. he famously threatened to blow up the stores of gunpowder so that the mobs could not get their hands on it(so much for that). He was beheaded by the angry citizens and paraded around Paris on a pike.

Suspected Role: I know this one is kind of cheating since he was pretty much confirmed by the Unity Cinematic Trailer, but de Launey will probably be the main target of a brotherhood mission during the Bastille's storming. My guess is that he was a prominent Templar when they were still in control of the Absolute Monarchy. I would say that after revolution becomes inevitable, the Templars will shift their efforts to trying to gain complete control of France again by gaining Dictatorial powers or Terror/Radical Republicanism(if you cant beat em Join em i guess).


That's all I have for now. Stay tuned for more. Or propose some of your own! Debate, discuss, challenge or add to the list!

As for secondary fictional characters I bet we see many. However i feel the Majority will still be historical figures. My guess is probably something like a 60-75% real 40-25% made up. I presume the higher range of my guess for fictional due to the fact that the majority of actual figures seemed to die by guillotine(which kind of takes the fun out of being an Assassin). But either way If they keep the majority factual and work them in in ways that make sense and have full characters like AC4 did or AC2 then that is fine with me.

But for the purposes of this thread i think it would be best to speculate who the real life templars will be. Since the existence of made up ones is pretty much a sure thing anyway there's no real point to debate that haha :p. And plus its extremely hard to speculate potential fictional characters.

Megas_Doux
07-29-2014, 02:04 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_Quentin_Fouquier-Tinville

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Antoine_Quentin_Fouquier-Tinville_%281746-1795%29%2C_French_revolutionary.jpg


Antoine Quentin Fouquier de Tinville (1746 – 7 May 1795) was a French prosecutor during the Revolution and Reign of Terror periods.

Public prosecutor

When the Revolutionary Tribunal of Paris was created by the National Convention on 10 March 1793, he was appointed its public prosecutor, an office that he filled until 1 August 1794.

His activity during this time earned him the reputation of one of the most sinister figures of the Revolution.[2] His office as public prosecutor arguably reflected a need to display the appearance of legality during what was essentially political command, more than a need to establish actual guilt. Fouquier de Tinville, like Maximilien Robespierre, was known for his ruthless radicalism. He acted as prosecutor in the trials of, among many others, Charlotte Corday, Marie Antoinette, the Girondist leadership, Antoine Barnave, Jacques Hébert and his supporters, as well as that of the Dantonists.
Downfall

His career ended with the fall of Robespierre at the start of the Thermidorian Reaction. Although he was briefly kept as the new government's prosecutor, even helping in the arrest of Robespierre, Louis de Saint-Just, and Georges Couthon, and being confirmed by Bertrand Barère de Vieuzac and the Convention on 28 July, he was arrested after being denounced by Louis-Marie Stanislas Fréron.

Imprisoned on 1 August, he was brought to trial in front of the Convention. His defense was that he had only obeyed the decrees of the Committee of Public Safety and the Conventio

zkorejo
07-29-2014, 07:18 AM
Yes.. these three are definitely Templars.. I will be shocked if they are not tbh. Esp. Marat and Robespierre.

Arno shooting Robespierre in the jaw and sending a female assassin to assassinate Marat would be awesome in the game. I hope they do include those events in the game with the players involvement.

Xstantin
07-29-2014, 07:26 AM
I won't be betting on Robespierre as the Templar for now. He seems like a safe choice considering real history, but still it kinda feels a bit too convenient. Not really sure how to explain it though.

Hans684
07-29-2014, 11:00 AM
I won't be betting on Robespierre as the Templar for now. He seems like a safe choice considering real history, but still it kinda feels a bit too convenient. Not really sure how to explain it though.

Makes more sense that Robespierre is a Sage, the Cult Of Supreme Being anyone? Sounds Juno related.

joelsantos24
07-29-2014, 11:50 AM
Makes more sense that Robespierre is a Sage, the Cult Of Supreme Being anyone? Sounds Juno related.
Are we talking about the same Robespierre? Maximilien de Robespierre? One of the most influential figures of the French Revolution, advocate against the death penalty and for the abolition of slavery, strong supporter of equality of rights, universal suffrage and the establishment of a republic?

It's true that the Thermidorians accused him of being the "soul" of the acts of barbaric brutality that followed the revolution, athough his guilt in the brutal excesses of that period has not been proven: a very important and influential french historian (Albert Mathiez) rejected the common view of Robespierre as demagogic, dictatorial, and fanatical [Albert Mathiez (1988), "Robespierre terroriste", dans Études sur Robespierre, p. 63 et 70; Jean-Clément Martin (2006), "Violence et Révolution", essai sur la naissance d'un mythe national, p. 224]. Mathiez offered instead, a view of "an eloquent spokesman for the poor and oppressed, an enemy of royalist intrigues, a vigilant adversary of dishonest and corrupt politicians, a guardian of the French Republic, an intrepid leader of the French Revolutionary government, and a prophet of a socially responsible state". Robespierre's reputation suffered, indeed, after his association with a radical purification of politics [Ruth Scurr (2006), Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution].

François Furet says: "There are two ways of totally misunderstanding Robespierre as a historical figure: one is to detest the man, the other is to make too much of him. It is absurd, of course, to see the lawyer from Arras as a monstrous usurper, the recluse as a demagogue, the moderate as bloodthirsty tyrant, the democrat as a dictator. On the other hand, what is explained about his destiny once it is proved that he really was The Incorruptible? The misconception common to both schools arises from the fact that they attribute to the psychological traits of the man the historical role into which he was thrust by events and the language he borrowed from them. Robespierre is an immortal figure, not because he reigned supreme over the Revolution for a few months, but because he was the mouthpiece of its purest and most tragic discourse" [François Furet (1989), Interpreting the French Revolution, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, pp. 60–61].

Having been one of the most influential figures in a brutal and bloody historical period, I think it's easy to label him a tyrant (hence, one of the most probable Templars in Unity), but as history goes, arguments go both ways. Much of what is said and written about Robespierre, might as well put him on the other extreme of the spectrum, in what regards the Templar beliefs and ideals.

Hans684
07-29-2014, 12:00 PM
Are we talking about the same Robespierre? Maximilien de Robespierre? One of the most influential figures of the French Revolution, advocate against the death penalty and for the abolition of slavery, strong supporter of equality of rights, universal suffrage and the establishment of a republic?

It's true that the Thermidorians accused him of being the "soul" of the acts of barbaric brutality that followed the revolution, athough his guilt in the brutal excesses of that period has not been proven: a very important and influential french historian (Albert Mathiez) rejected the common view of Robespierre as demagogic, dictatorial, and fanatical [Albert Mathiez (1988), "Robespierre terroriste", dans Études sur Robespierre, p. 63 et 70; Jean-Clément Martin (2006), "Violence et Révolution", essai sur la naissance d'un mythe national, p. 224]. Mathiez offered instead, a view of "an eloquent spokesman for the poor and oppressed, an enemy of royalist intrigues, a vigilant adversary of dishonest and corrupt politicians, a guardian of the French Republic, an intrepid leader of the French Revolutionary government, and a prophet of a socially responsible state". Robespierre's reputation suffered, indeed, after his association with a radical purification of politics [Ruth Scurr (2006), Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution].

François Furet says: "There are two ways of totally misunderstanding Robespierre as a historical figure: one is to detest the man, the other is to make too much of him. It is absurd, of course, to see the lawyer from Arras as a monstrous usurper, the recluse as a demagogue, the moderate as bloodthirsty tyrant, the democrat as a dictator. On the other hand, what is explained about his destiny once it is proved that he really was The Incorruptible? The misconception common to both schools arises from the fact that they attribute to the psychological traits of the man the historical role into which he was thrust by events and the language he borrowed from them. Robespierre is an immortal figure, not because he reigned supreme over the Revolution for a few months, but because he was the mouthpiece of its purest and most tragic discourse" [François Furet (1989), Interpreting the French Revolution, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, pp. 60–61].

Having been one of the most influential figures in a brutal and bloody historical period, I think it's easy to label him a tyrant (hence, one of the most probable Templars in Unity), but as history goes, arguments go both ways. Much of what is said and written about Robespierre, might as well put him on the other extreme of the spectrum, in what regards the Templar beliefs and ideals.

Doesn't change that he could be a Sage, sure the possibility of him being a Templar is there but nothing stops him from being both. And if he is a Templar I'm going to be disappointed.

SHADOWGARVIN
07-29-2014, 12:29 PM
Doesn't change that he could be a Sage, sure the possibility of him being a Templar is there but nothing stops him from being both. And if he is a Templar I'm going to be disappointed.

Why would ubisoft include a sage in Unity? The sage story was already a big part of AC4.

Hans684
07-29-2014, 12:38 PM
Why would ubisoft include a sage in Unity? The sage story was already a big part of AC4.

Have we defeated Juno already? What did I miss?

SHADOWGARVIN
07-29-2014, 12:47 PM
Have we defeated Juno already? What did I miss?

I don't know what you've missed, but i do know it doesn't make any sense for them to include a sage in the very next story. Does ubisoft include a sage in every game? Was there a sage in AC1 or AC2? What about ACB, ACR or AC3? Obviously ubisoft includes a sage in every AC game.

joelsantos24
07-29-2014, 01:05 PM
Doesn't change that he could be a Sage, sure the possibility of him being a Templar is there but nothing stops him from being both. And if he is a Templar I'm going to be disappointed.
I actually meant it the other way around. I'm not sure he'll be a Templar, the same way I'm not sure he'll be a Sage. In many ways, his beliefs are very much contrary to the Templars, as well as the common lunatic traits of the Sage. Maybe he'll happen to be what history showed us what he most likely ended up being in the first place, a mere passionate spokesperson in and of a brutal and bloody period of his country's history.


I don't know what you've missed, but i do know it doesn't make any sense for them to include a sage in the very next story. Does ubisoft include a sage in every game? Was there a sage in AC1 or AC2? What about ACB, ACR or AC3? Obviously ubisoft includes a sage in every AC game.
The Sage storyline initiated in Black Flag, and it didn't end there. We know the man that was helping us around Abstergo Entertainment, was actually another reincarnation of the persona (Juno's husband). I think he'll definitely be around Unity.

SHADOWGARVIN
07-29-2014, 01:10 PM
The Sage storyline initiated in Black Flag, and it didn't end there. We know the man that was helping us around Abstergo Entertainment, was actually another reincarnation of the persona (Juno's husband). I think he'll definitely be around Unity.

I'm not saying we won't be seeing him in future games, but i'll be very surprised if they bring him back for unity. I think he will be back in a later game.

Hans684
07-29-2014, 01:12 PM
I don't know what you've missed, but i do know it doesn't make any sense for them to include a sage in the very next story. Does ubisoft include a sage in every game? Was there a sage in AC1 or AC2? What about ACB, ACR or AC3? Obviously ubisoft includes a sage in every AC game.

It does it's relevant to the Juno arc, just like the Apple Of Eden was relevant to the Desmond saving the world arc(AC1-AC3). No they did not, it wasn't in the same stage as now. The main focus was entirely different, it was about saving the world. And Juno wasn't released at that point. Pointless questions. We have passed the saving the world arc and now Juno is going to do her part. That involves getting a body(proof, Black Flag) and her own faction(Instruments Of The First Will) is part of that and it includes her husband Aita(Dead, but his human reincarnations(Sages)is very much alive) Obviously none of this is relevant and the games only do random stuff for the sake of it. I expect unicorns and wizards in Unity, they are the most relevant arc AC has.


I actually meant it the other way around. I'm not sure he'll be a Templar, the same way I'm not sure he'll be a Sage. In many ways, his beliefs are very much contrary to the Templars, as well as the common lunatic traits of the Sage. Maybe he'll happen to be what history showed us what he most likely ended up being in the first place, a mere passionate spokesperson in and of a brutal and bloody period of his country's history.

Sorry, English is not my first language. Anyway I get the point, he does fit both but what he is going to be is not easy to find out.

SHADOWGARVIN
07-29-2014, 01:14 PM
It does it's relevant to the Juno arc, just like the Apple Of Eden was relevant to the Desmond saving the world arc(AC1-AC3). No they did not, it wasn't in the same stage as now. The main focus was entirely different, it was about saving the world. And Juno wasn't released at that point. Pointless questions. We have passed the saving the world arc and now Juno is going to do her part. That involves getting a body(proof, Black Flag) and her own faction(Instruments Of The First Will) is part of that and it includes her husband Aita(Dead, but his human reincarnations(Sages)is very much alive) Obviously none of this is relevant and the games only do random stuff for the sake of it. I expect unicorns and wizards in Unity, they are the most relevant arc AC has.

Obviously you didn't read my next comment. Besides there is no point arguing with a small child. If you want to convince someone try giving argument instead of pointless comments.

Hans684
07-29-2014, 01:23 PM
Obviously you didn't read my next comment. Besides there is no point arguing with a small child. If you want to convince someone try giving argument instead of pointless comments.

I'd did after I posted mine(it wasn't there before(your judging to fast)), anyway I did the same as you so thanks for the label. Well I did give an argument, you only focused on the "childish" part and made this comment instead of continuing the discussion. The discussion we have now is even more pointless, should we stay on topic instead. Now if you want to discuss, discuss. If you want to continue this of topic pointless discussion I'd prefer if you don't continue at all. I'm not gonna continue at least.

SHADOWGARVIN
07-29-2014, 01:28 PM
I'd did after I posted mine(it wasn't there before(your judging to fast)), anyway I did the same as you so thanks for the label. Well I did give an argument, you only focused on the "childish" part and made this comment instead of continuing the discussion. The discussion we have now is even more pointless, should we stay on topic instead. Now if you want to discuss, discuss. If you want to continue this of topic pointless discussion I'd prefer if you don't continue at all. I'm not gonna continue at least.

Like i said before, i think that the sage will indeed show up again, but i'm not sure he will show up in this game. Maybe i'm wrong. Who knows.

Hans684
07-29-2014, 01:59 PM
Like i said before, i think that the sage will indeed show up again, but i'm not sure he will show up in this game. Maybe i'm wrong. Who knows.

It's one of many possibilities, we can't get a clear awnser. Only speculate.

SHADOWGARVIN
07-29-2014, 02:20 PM
It's one of many possibilities, we can't get a clear awnser. Only speculate.

True, it's all speculation at this point.

DumbGamerTag94
07-29-2014, 03:58 PM
Are we talking about the same Robespierre? Maximilien de Robespierre? One of the most influential figures of the French Revolution, advocate against the death penalty and for the abolition of slavery, strong supporter of equality of rights, universal suffrage and the establishment of a republic?

It's true that the Thermidorians accused him of being the "soul" of the acts of barbaric brutality that followed the revolution, athough his guilt in the brutal excesses of that period has not been proven: a very important and influential french historian (Albert Mathiez) rejected the common view of Robespierre as demagogic, dictatorial, and fanatical [Albert Mathiez (1988), "Robespierre terroriste", dans Études sur Robespierre, p. 63 et 70; Jean-Clément Martin (2006), "Violence et Révolution", essai sur la naissance d'un mythe national, p. 224]. Mathiez offered instead, a view of "an eloquent spokesman for the poor and oppressed, an enemy of royalist intrigues, a vigilant adversary of dishonest and corrupt politicians, a guardian of the French Republic, an intrepid leader of the French Revolutionary government, and a prophet of a socially responsible state". Robespierre's reputation suffered, indeed, after his association with a radical purification of politics [Ruth Scurr (2006), Fatal Purity: Robespierre and the French Revolution].

François Furet says: "There are two ways of totally misunderstanding Robespierre as a historical figure: one is to detest the man, the other is to make too much of him. It is absurd, of course, to see the lawyer from Arras as a monstrous usurper, the recluse as a demagogue, the moderate as bloodthirsty tyrant, the democrat as a dictator. On the other hand, what is explained about his destiny once it is proved that he really was The Incorruptible? The misconception common to both schools arises from the fact that they attribute to the psychological traits of the man the historical role into which he was thrust by events and the language he borrowed from them. Robespierre is an immortal figure, not because he reigned supreme over the Revolution for a few months, but because he was the mouthpiece of its purest and most tragic discourse" [François Furet (1989), Interpreting the French Revolution, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, pp. 60–61].

Having been one of the most influential figures in a brutal and bloody historical period, I think it's easy to label him a tyrant (hence, one of the most probable Templars in Unity), but as history goes, arguments go both ways. Much of what is said and written about Robespierre, might as well put him on the other extreme of the spectrum, in what regards the Templar beliefs and ideals.

Woah woah woah. Hold on now. Just because a handful of historians like Robespierre doesn't mean he doesn't suit the templars. The vast majority of historians still condemn him as a tyrant and dangerous radical with good reason. Just because a man has some good intentions or a small number of redeeming qualities doesn't make him any less evil overall or fitting of being a Templar in AC(see Rodrigo Borgia. Many think he was a good dude also). Templars are perfectly capable of having good intentions in fact that's kind of the point. Since AC1 they have said of the Templars "it's not that what they want is bad...but how they'd go about it is just wrong...really wrong". But back to Robespierre even most of the historians that praise him also add that he was no saint by any means(so that's not saying a lot for the guy).

Here is some evidence why Robespierre fits the role of Tyrannical Templar far better than that of the Enlightened "Incorruptible" Liberator:

1: you say he fought for a Republic thus he's not very Templary. That is false. The Templars of AC3 also fought for a republic in the US Haytham even says so when he talks with Connor they did not support the British. In fact the Templars that were sided with the British(Of which there were 3) 2 of them were before or at the very beginning of the revolution(Pitcairn and Johnson) the Templars already held power with the British regime so at that point it was in their interest to prevent the war. The 3rd supporter was Church who had to leave the Templars to remain a loyalist. After the war broke out the Templars switched their attention to getting their people into power within the machinations of the American Republic. Which is very much what Robespierre did. Securing power for him and his within the system of a Republic(and if the ballot didn't favor him coups and guillotines would). Templars are not against democracy as long as they are the party in power.

2: his opposition to the death penalty and slavery: firstly he was only an opponent of the death penalty as a young law student. During the revolution he had a change of character and became one of the strongest supporters of the Terror and execution of "counter revolutionaries". And voted to execute the King(as well as outwardly lobbying for it). So he did not stay opposed to the death penalty in fact in later life he was one of its biggest advocates. It seems he only supported murder and tyrannical acts if it was on his side of the issues. It was just a tool to gain power(very Templary)

As for slavery. The members of the Knights Templar have been spilt over this issue. With some like Torres and Aveline's mother opposing slavery. And others like Woodes Rogers, The Slaver in AC1(I think his name was Talal), Al Mualim, and others supporting or at least allowing it. But since Rogers was kicked out of the order for the slave trade and Torres and Avelines stepmother were both grand masters. It would seem the Templar order frowns upon the establishment.

3: He supported equality of rights and universal suffrage? While on paper this is true and probably served as really nice propaganda and lip service(let's not forget he is a politician and they do lie about a lot of things to gain votes and support). So on paper and in laws and such he did pursue these goals. However on the other hand he threw this idea out of the window. If the electorate had a majority of Constitutional Monarchists(or a second time with the Girondists) he would allow for a coup to get his way. If the dantonists weren't radical enough for his liking he'd have them executed. So yes while on paper and in rhetoric Robespierre supported these things. In practice he had no respect for democracy and votes and representatives did not matter. All that mattered to him was his own agenda and his Jacobin party.(while his words may say otherwise what he did is documented and actions speak louder than words). He may have claimed to support these things but I believe the historical events(with him at the helm) clearly show otherwise. He was either severely in denial, delusional, or a flat out hypocrite.

4: his abuse of power. While you may say that Robespierre's "guilt in the bloody excesses of that period has not been proven". Well what we do know is this. Robespierre was the head of the committee of public safety, which at that point in time was the de facto panel of dictators that ruled France. It was he who most fervently advocated the terror, and worse still it's continuation after people were beginning to say it had played it's part and there was no longer a need for it. Also while he was a member of the National Assembly he supported coups against his political opposition, and execution I the royal family. And was on the committee of public safety and voted to declare the dantonists(his former allies) counter revolutionaries/enemies of the state condemned to death. And did not attend their execution(a bit of guilt perhaps?).

While he may not have literally dropped the guillotine on anyone's head or stabbed his enemies to death. He is still just as guilty for killing them as if he did. Because he did this all within the workings of a republic. And in a republic all it takes is a vote to be responsible for the horrors he was all too willing to vote for and advocate/lobby for. Even worse in Robespierre's case due to his powerful position on the Committee and his influence as one of the leading radicals and party leader. His voice had a massive impact on how a vote would turn out. Thus if he says the King(or Danton, or the Girondists, or 1,000s of Frenchmen who may or may not have been innocent) need to die. Then almost surely they would be dead shortly due to his position. Thus while he didn't personally kill them it's no different from somebody ordering a mafia hit. He is just as guilty as the executioner.

5: his role in the cult of the supreme being: he creates his own religion. Makes it the official state religion of France. Then at the main event of the holidays celebration. Makes a grand entrance. And gives a passionate speech about the new religion(all while wearing a robe or toga). It seemed to a great deal many people he was trying to play himself off as a god or profit in this new religion. So it can be gained from this that Robespierre thought quite a lot of himself and may have had delusions of grandeur.

So while Robespierre was in fact "incorruptible" and advocated many good ideas while being the guiding voice of the revolution and it's most fervent protector and standard bearer. That does not mean he was not a tyrant or unsuited for the Templars. Robespierre was an idealist and when put in practice he behaved counter to many of the things he claimed to support(something that often happens to idealists when they realize the world is not ideal and they can't have everything they want all at once). So unless you only view the revolution through his vision and ideal. Robespierre comes across as a brutal tyrant. However is you hold the same views and support his methods to achieve them he seems like a wise and great ruler.

But the facts are facts. Robespierre betrays the very idea of what a republic should be by removing fairly elected officials from power just because they oppose him(that's a dictatorship not a republic Hitler and Stalin used those kind of methods), abused his influential position, and is just as guilty for the execution of thousands of people as the executioners themselves. Just because you hold good ideals and have a good vision for what you want. The methods you use to achieve them are what should ultimately decide if you are evil or not. Very few people view themselves as evil if any. He thought he was doing right, as did his supporters. But does that mean he was? Just because a few people agree? People agreed with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao too but nobody is going to ignore the facts and say they were not tyrants just because they looked at the world through their same rose colored glasses.

This is exactly why Robespierre suits the Templars to a T. The Templars are people who hold good ideals(peace, equality, and order) but the means by which they achieve them are wrong. It is very very hard to defend Robespierre for not being a tyrant, but at the same time he was the incorruptible ideal of what France and it's people wanted to be. He just went about it wrong. Thus I see him as being a Templar because he pursues good goals, but used some of the most evil methods imaginable to Achieve them.

joelsantos24
07-29-2014, 06:00 PM
Woah woah woah. Hold on now. Just because a handful of historians like Robespierre doesn't mean he doesn't suit the templars. The vast majority of historians still condemn him as a tyrant and dangerous radical with good reason. Just because a man has some good intentions or a small number of redeeming qualities doesn't make him any less evil overall or fitting of being a Templar in AC(see Rodrigo Borgia. Many think he was a good dude also). Templars are perfectly capable of having good intentions in fact that's kind of the point. Since AC1 they have said of the Templars "it's not that what they want is bad...but how they'd go about it is just wrong...really wrong". But back to Robespierre even most of the historians that praise him also add that he was no saint by any means(so that's not saying a lot for the guy).

Here is some evidence why Robespierre fits the role of Tyrannical Templar far better than that of the Enlightened "Incorruptible" Liberator:

1: you say he fought for a Republic thus he's not very Templary. That is false. The Templars of AC3 also fought for a republic in the US Haytham even says so when he talks with Connor they did not support the British. In fact the Templars that were sided with the British(Of which there were 3) 2 of them were before or at the very beginning of the revolution(Pitcairn and Johnson) the Templars already held power with the British regime so at that point it was in their interest to prevent the war. The 3rd supporter was Church who had to leave the Templars to remain a loyalist. After the war broke out the Templars switched their attention to getting their people into power within the machinations of the American Republic. Which is very much what Robespierre did. Securing power for him and his within the system of a Republic(and if the ballot didn't favor him coups and guillotines would). Templars are not against democracy as long as they are the party in power.

2: his opposition to the death penalty and slavery: firstly he was only an opponent of the death penalty as a young law student. During the revolution he had a change of character and became one of the strongest supporters of the Terror and execution of "counter revolutionaries". And voted to execute the King(as well as outwardly lobbying for it). So he did not stay opposed to the death penalty in fact in later life he was one of its biggest advocates. It seems he only supported murder and tyrannical acts if it was on his side of the issues. It was just a tool to gain power(very Templary)

As for slavery. The members of the Knights Templar have been spilt over this issue. With some like Torres and Aveline's mother opposing slavery. And others like Woodes Rogers, The Slaver in AC1(I think his name was Talal), Al Mualim, and others supporting or at least allowing it. But since Rogers was kicked out of the order for the slave trade and Torres and Avelines stepmother were both grand masters. It would seem the Templar order frowns upon the establishment.

3: He supported equality of rights and universal suffrage? While on paper this is true and probably served as really nice propaganda and lip service(let's not forget he is a politician and they do lie about a lot of things to gain votes and support). So on paper and in laws and such he did pursue these goals. However on the other hand he threw this idea out of the window. If the electorate had a majority of Constitutional Monarchists(or a second time with the Girondists) he would allow for a coup to get his way. If the dantonists weren't radical enough for his liking he'd have them executed. So yes while on paper and in rhetoric Robespierre supported these things. In practice he had no respect for democracy and votes and representatives did not matter. All that mattered to him was his own agenda and his Jacobin party.(while his words may say otherwise what he did is documented and actions speak louder than words). He may have claimed to support these things but I believe the historical events(with him at the helm) clearly show otherwise. He was either severely in denial, delusional, or a flat out hypocrite.

4: his abuse of power. While you may say that Robespierre's "guilt in the bloody excesses of that period has not been proven". Well what we do know is this. Robespierre was the head of the committee of public safety, which at that point in time was the de facto panel of dictators that ruled France. It was he who most fervently advocated the terror, and worse still it's continuation after people were beginning to say it had played it's part and there was no longer a need for it. Also while he was a member of the National Assembly he supported coups against his political opposition, and execution I the royal family. And was on the committee of public safety and voted to declare the dantonists(his former allies) counter revolutionaries/enemies of the state condemned to death. And did not attend their execution(a bit of guilt perhaps?).

While he may not have literally dropped the guillotine on anyone's head or stabbed his enemies to death. He is still just as guilty for killing them as if he did. Because he did this all within the workings of a republic. And in a republic all it takes is a vote to be responsible for the horrors he was all too willing to vote for and advocate/lobby for. Even worse in Robespierre's case due to his powerful position on the Committee and his influence as one of the leading radicals and party leader. His voice had a massive impact on how a vote would turn out. Thus if he says the King(or Danton, or the Girondists, or 1,000s of Frenchmen who may or may not have been innocent) need to die. Then almost surely they would be dead shortly due to his position. Thus while he didn't personally kill them it's no different from somebody ordering a mafia hit. He is just as guilty as the executioner.

5: his role in the cult of the supreme being: he creates his own religion. Makes it the official state religion of France. Then at the main event of the holidays celebration. Makes a grand entrance. And gives a passionate speech about the new religion(all while wearing a robe or toga). It seemed to a great deal many people he was trying to play himself off as a god or profit in this new religion. So it can be gained from this that Robespierre thought quite a lot of himself and may have had delusions of grandeur.

So while Robespierre was in fact "incorruptible" and advocated many good ideas while being the guiding voice of the revolution and it's most fervent protector and standard bearer. That does not mean he was not a tyrant or unsuited for the Templars. Robespierre was an idealist and when put in practice he behaved counter to many of the things he claimed to support(something that often happens to idealists when they realize the world is not ideal and they can't have everything they want all at once). So unless you only view the revolution through his vision and ideal. Robespierre comes across as a brutal tyrant. However is you hold the same views and support his methods to achieve them he seems like a wise and great ruler.

But the facts are facts. Robespierre betrays the very idea of what a republic should be by removing fairly elected officials from power just because they oppose him(that's a dictatorship not a republic Hitler and Stalin used those kind of methods), abused his influential position, and is just as guilty for the execution of thousands of people as the executioners themselves. Just because you hold good ideals and have a good vision for what you want. The methods you use to achieve them are what should ultimately decide if you are evil or not. Very few people view themselves as evil if any. He thought he was doing right, as did his supporters. But does that mean he was? Just because a few people agree? People agreed with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao too but nobody is going to ignore the facts and say they were not tyrants just because they looked at the world through their same rose colored glasses.

This is exactly why Robespierre suits the Templars to a T. The Templars are people who hold good ideals(peace, equality, and order) but the means by which they achieve them are wrong. It is very very hard to defend Robespierre for not being a tyrant, but at the same time he was the incorruptible ideal of what France and it's people wanted to be. He just went about it wrong. Thus I see him as being a Templar because he pursues good goals, but used some of the most evil methods imaginable to Achieve them.
I wasn't talking about redeeming qualities, I was merely stating that, for many historians, he was indeed a tyranical bastard, but for many others, he simply wasn't. I've included the references for those cases, you can take a look, if you like. Furthermore, I didn't issue an opinion of my own, on either him, his qualities or his faults, I merely wanted to present another argument onto the table, one that is indeed also a reality.

Historians disagree, period. Some present one side of the arguments, others present another. I wasn't saying they are right or wrong, I just think it's important to consider all sides of the issue. One thing I do agree with, it's easy to blame Robespierre for everything during the Reign of Terror, he was the obvious spokesperson of that brutal movement, but like I said before, historians have claimed that, in truth, his direct/indirect involvement was never proven. References were also included for this, if you're interested.

ze_topazio
07-29-2014, 06:18 PM
Elise.

LoyalACFan
07-29-2014, 06:24 PM
Elise.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQykqSGojmgRtOGVTNzD37rHG5naDqCG jPcYSc_Fq-2fVVp9LRw

SHADOWGARVIN
07-29-2014, 06:50 PM
What gave it away? The fiery templar statue?

DumbGamerTag94
07-29-2014, 07:13 PM
I wasn't talking about redeeming qualities, I was merely stating that, for many historians, he was indeed a tyranical bastard, but for many others, he simply wasn't. I've included the references for those cases, you can take a look, if you like. Furthermore, I didn't issue an opinion of my own, on either him, his qualities or his faults, I merely wanted to present another argument onto the table, one that is indeed also a reality.

Historians disagree, period. Some present one side of the arguments, others present another. I wasn't saying they are right or wrong, I just think it's important to consider all sides of the issue. One thing I do agree with, it's easy to blame Robespierre for everything during the Reign of Terror, he was the obvious spokesperson of that brutal movement, but like I said before, historians have claimed that, in truth, his direct/indirect involvement was never proven. References were also included for this, if you're interested.

It's actually a VERY small minority of historians that support the claim that Robespierre wasn't a tyrant. Most typically support that he was based largely on the evidence I gave from my last post. You do know there is a branch of historians considered revisionists right? There are historians that claim all kinds of things. I've seen historians that write whole books on things like, The South won the US Civil War, the Holocaust never happened, Napoleon was an antichrist(I'm serious it's a real thing not kidding), aliens built the pyramids, George S. Patton was assassinated, and the list goes on and on. They're called revisionists/apologists they typically come from either the political party or country/region that is typically depicted a certain way. They then use all kinds of evidence and any little gap of missing documented proof or photos etc and then create all kinds of crazy theories. But in most cases they can be refuted by using historical documents and court hearings, speeches, government records, forensics, etc.

I understand that these authors are saying that Robespierre was not a tyrant because he did these things to create an ideal democracy. That he was attempting to make things better. But what is a tyrant?

Tyrant: any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically(dictionary.com)

Where in there does it differentiate that it's any different if it's for the greater good? No tyrant in history was ever under the belief that they were not working for the greater good. The same arguments can be made for others like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussain, etc. it's a flawed argument because ideology is not what makes a tyrant. It's the actions. And any way you shake it Robespierre used his position of authority to exercise power and oppress his opposition and the people of France. He may not have seen it that way nor his supporters but that does not matter. What he did is the very definition of a tyrant. the Facts are facts. Period.

And I apologize if I mistook what you said for your personal opinion. I just took it from your opening lines "Are we talking about the same Robespierre? Maximilien de Robespierre? One of the most influential figures of the French Revolution, advocate against the death penalty and for the abolition of slavery, strong supporter of equality of rights, universal suffrage and the establishment of a republic?" That you seemed rather offended and a very fervent supporter of the claims you listed.

As for you're statement "historians claim that, in truth, his direct/indirect involvement has never been proven". Really? It can be found in many historical accounts and the documents from the period that Robespierre voted for(which in a republic is being responsible indirectly) the use of the terror, killing the royals and the execution of the dantonists. He even gave fiery speeches in support of several of these things to gain other representatives votes on the measure. And it was his jacobins that partook in most of the coups that secured their further power. He was their leader and at the very least a prominent member. There is no way he could not have known of this. And allowing it to happen anyway because it benefits him is equally evil. Not to mention he would execute anyone who could do the same to him. I mean really a politician is responsible just by voting for things. And not only does he vote for the evils of the terror but personally proposed several of the measures. All of this is documented it's not conjecture. What more evidence do you need to hold him responsible. A time machine and a photograph of him chopping off someone's head. That's like saying hitler isn't responsible for the holocaust because he didn't kill anyone personally. But did he not create the system? Put those laws in place? Order the executions? Yes. Robespierre is guilty in the same way!

Just because what someone wants or thinks is good doesn't mean that it automatically excuses any evil in the process of achieving it. The ends do not always justify the means. Besides most of what Robespierre did was counter to his own beliefs anyway. He was just too blind with radicalism to see it. A republic(but only if you are loyal to the Jacobins and Robespierre all other representatives will be silenced,removed, or executed), no death penalty(unless they are my enemies), Liberty(from all rulers but me), equality(unless you are a royalist or oppose my rule then you die), fraternety(until you no longer serve a purpose or oppose me). Do you not see the contradiction?

So it does not matter what he was working towards or how incorruptible in his ideals he was. It does not change the fact that based on his actions(which is what defines tyranny not intent) he was the definition of a tyrant. It is very difficult to prove otherwise with events or actions. Words or intentions are worth nothing more than rhetoric and hypotheticals and maybe a technicality. But the world doesn't work on ideals or technicalities. It works on action. And what Robespierre DID(not what he wanted) was very much tyrannical.

joelsantos24
07-30-2014, 01:10 PM
It's actually a VERY small minority of historians that support the claim that Robespierre wasn't a tyrant. Most typically support that he was based largely on the evidence I gave from my last post. You do know there is a branch of historians considered revisionists right? There are historians that claim all kinds of things. I've seen historians that write whole books on things like, The South won the US Civil War, the Holocaust never happened, Napoleon was an antichrist(I'm serious it's a real thing not kidding), aliens built the pyramids, George S. Patton was assassinated, and the list goes on and on. They're called revisionists/apologists they typically come from either the political party or country/region that is typically depicted a certain way. They then use all kinds of evidence and any little gap of missing documented proof or photos etc and then create all kinds of crazy theories. But in most cases they can be refuted by using historical documents and court hearings, speeches, government records, forensics, etc.

I understand that these authors are saying that Robespierre was not a tyrant because he did these things to create an ideal democracy. That he was attempting to make things better. But what is a tyrant?

Tyrant: any person in a position of authority who exercises power oppressively or despotically(dictionary.com)

Where in there does it differentiate that it's any different if it's for the greater good? No tyrant in history was ever under the belief that they were not working for the greater good. The same arguments can be made for others like Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussain, etc. it's a flawed argument because ideology is not what makes a tyrant. It's the actions. And any way you shake it Robespierre used his position of authority to exercise power and oppress his opposition and the people of France. He may not have seen it that way nor his supporters but that does not matter. What he did is the very definition of a tyrant. the Facts are facts. Period.

And I apologize if I mistook what you said for your personal opinion. I just took it from your opening lines "Are we talking about the same Robespierre? Maximilien de Robespierre? One of the most influential figures of the French Revolution, advocate against the death penalty and for the abolition of slavery, strong supporter of equality of rights, universal suffrage and the establishment of a republic?" That you seemed rather offended and a very fervent supporter of the claims you listed.

As for you're statement "historians claim that, in truth, his direct/indirect involvement has never been proven". Really? It can be found in many historical accounts and the documents from the period that Robespierre voted for(which in a republic is being responsible indirectly) the use of the terror, killing the royals and the execution of the dantonists. He even gave fiery speeches in support of several of these things to gain other representatives votes on the measure. And it was his jacobins that partook in most of the coups that secured their further power. He was their leader and at the very least a prominent member. There is no way he could not have known of this. And allowing it to happen anyway because it benefits him is equally evil. Not to mention he would execute anyone who could do the same to him. I mean really a politician is responsible just by voting for things. And not only does he vote for the evils of the terror but personally proposed several of the measures. All of this is documented it's not conjecture. What more evidence do you need to hold him responsible. A time machine and a photograph of him chopping off someone's head. That's like saying hitler isn't responsible for the holocaust because he didn't kill anyone personally. But did he not create the system? Put those laws in place? Order the executions? Yes. Robespierre is guilty in the same way!

Just because what someone wants or thinks is good doesn't mean that it automatically excuses any evil in the process of achieving it. The ends do not always justify the means. Besides most of what Robespierre did was counter to his own beliefs anyway. He was just too blind with radicalism to see it. A republic(but only if you are loyal to the Jacobins and Robespierre all other representatives will be silenced,removed, or executed), no death penalty(unless they are my enemies), Liberty(from all rulers but me), equality(unless you are a royalist or oppose my rule then you die), fraternety(until you no longer serve a purpose or oppose me). Do you not see the contradiction?

So it does not matter what he was working towards or how incorruptible in his ideals he was. It does not change the fact that based on his actions(which is what defines tyranny not intent) he was the definition of a tyrant. It is very difficult to prove otherwise with events or actions. Words or intentions are worth nothing more than rhetoric and hypotheticals and maybe a technicality. But the world doesn't work on ideals or technicalities. It works on action. And what Robespierre DID(not what he wanted) was very much tyrannical.
I provided the references for those statements and views that I mentioned. If you want to check them out, perfect, if not, perfect just the same. But to assume, out of nowhere, that the historians I mentioned are a minority and most of all, revisionists or whatever else, just because their opinions are contrary to your's, is a huge (and misguided) leap of faith. All of which I wrote is true, furthermore, I provided references, so people can read and decide for themselves. That's all I have to say.

DumbGamerTag94
07-30-2014, 04:05 PM
@POP_WW_2008

It wasn't a leap of faith I checked. But apparently you require citations and photographic evidence for everything( which isn't worth much these days due to revisionists and photoshop but ill play fair)

Ok your "historians" you've cited:

Albert Matheiz: (1874-1932) (your citation is from a 1988 reprint of one of his works) French historian known for his Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution. "Albert Mathiez (1874, La Bruyère, Haute-Saône – 1932) was a French historian, known for his Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution. Mathiez emphasized class conflict. He argued that 1789 pitted the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, and then the Revolution pitted the bourgeoisie against the sans-culottes, who were a proletariat-in-the-making. Mathiez greatly influenced Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul in forming what came to be known as the "orthodox" Marxist interpretation of the Revolution. Mathiez admired Robespierre, praised the Terror, and did not extend complete sympathy to the struggle of the proletariat."(Wikipedia(cross referenced with Infoplease.com and Biography.yourdictionary.com in case wiki isn't satisfactory.) he is literally a textbook revisionist/apologist.

Jean-Clement Martin: I could not find anything in English. But I have translated some and it does seem he is a balanced writer that neither praised Robespierre or considers him a heartless dictator(which was never what I was trying to say). I agree with this kind of historian.

Ruth Scurr: (1971-) Director of Studies in Human, Social and Political Sciences for Gonville and Caius College. Her research interests include: 17th and 18th century history of ideas; the French Revolution; Revolutionary Memoir; early Feminist Political Thought. However in all fairness to miss Scurr her book "Fatal Plurality" does devote a lot of its pages to condemning Robespierre's actions she shows his good side through intentions and goals/personal background. So overall a fair interpretation of the man not depicting him as an evil mustache twirler super villain but does condemn his actions pursuing his goals. So it isn't fair to hold her up as a champion of Robespierre by using only part of the point of her writing.

Francois Furet: (1927-1997) Furet, a disillusioned ex-Communist, published his classic, La Révolution Française in 1965-66. It marked his transition from revolutionary leftist politics to liberal Left-center position, and reflected his ties to the social-science-oriented Annales School. His works include Interpreting the French Revolution (1981), a historiographical overview of what has preceded him(which is the work you cited). It does not express his views in that excerpt you posted. In fact it explains the popular views before he began writing and how he is different. That he neither believes Robespierre was a Saint(as the Marxists do). Or that he was a Brutal heartless monster(as the Right wing historians of the time often did). He is a fair writer and does show that Robespierre was a tyrant, just not a heartless maniacal sociopath either(which is pretty much what I've been trying to say)

So here is what I mean when I say the majority do find Robespierre to be tyrannical. You used a Marxist revisionist as your primary source. Marxist interpretations of history a extremely far off from the common view of any history. Most historians are fairly balanced. Not that man though. He even supports the terror!! It is in the interests of Communists and Socialists to make Robespierre a Saint because he was one of the furthest left political leaders of western history(and look how his rule turned out for people). So it is in the best interest of Marxists to put a positive spin on anything he did so that people in the western world don't associate extreme Leftist politics with Robespierre's radicalism and reign of terror.

You're other citations and their authors do little to support or defend Robespierre. Most of them actually do consider him to either be tyrannical, or at the very least take things too far. They only defend him mainly on character, intentions, and goals. Not on his deeds during the terror. Their general consensus is that he did things in pursuit of a greater good and was in fact a good man himself.

You must note that the majority of people who find good in Robespierre are from Far-Left schools of thought(as seen from bolded commonalities). And those who confess to his wrongdoing. But still claim him a great man have a tendency to be more moderate leftists. The extreme left being an extreme minority of historians

The popular depiction of Robespierre is balanced and in the center politically(as most of your authors tried to achieve). The general consensus is he was a tyrant. But motivated by a greater good and high ideals thus nowhere near an evil man(which is what I've been trying to say!). So if you count this view(which is 3/4 of the people you cited) along with the far right historians(who also consider Robespierre a tyrant but far more harshly). The VAST majority of historians concede he was a tyrant in some way shape or form. I by no means took a leap of faith on that one.

You just can't take a citation from one man in a radical school. And then use only 1/2 of the arguments of other authors to support that claim when that is not what the other authors were trying to get across. So when you say Historians disagree. Period. What you should have said is "I found one radical that disagrees". One radical does not many historians make. Even if you included all Marxist historians it would still be a very small minority.

So I don't see where I was wrong? Just because you cite something doesn't mean it is the general consensus or the truth. Don't believe everything you read.

Just to prove a point:
The Walrus Was Paul: The Great Beatle Death Clues by R. Gary Patterson

Paul McCartney really is Dead: the last testament of George Harrison

Here are a full book and documentary that could be cited if you wish to prove/argue Paul McCartney of the Beatles died in 1966 and his death was covered up and he was replaced with a lookalike who had plastic surgery to look identical to Paul(even though Paul McCartney is still alive today and this claim is completely ridiculous)

You can put anything in print. Doesn't mean it's true.

joelsantos24
07-30-2014, 05:06 PM
@POP_WW_2008

It wasn't a leap of faith I checked. But apparently you require citations and photographic evidence for everything( which isn't worth much these days due to revisionists and photoshop but ill play fair)

Ok your "historians" you've cited:

Albert Matheiz: (1874-1932) (your citation is from a 1988 reprint of one of his works) French historian known for his Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution. "Albert Mathiez (1874, La Bruyère, Haute-Saône – 1932) was a French historian, known for his Marxist interpretation of the French Revolution. Mathiez emphasized class conflict. He argued that 1789 pitted the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy, and then the Revolution pitted the bourgeoisie against the sans-culottes, who were a proletariat-in-the-making. Mathiez greatly influenced Georges Lefebvre and Albert Soboul in forming what came to be known as the "orthodox" Marxist interpretation of the Revolution. Mathiez admired Robespierre, praised the Terror, and did not extend complete sympathy to the struggle of the proletariat."(Wikipedia(cross referenced with Infoplease.com and Biography.yourdictionary.com in case wiki isn't satisfactory.) he is literally a textbook revisionist/apologist.

Jean-Clement Martin: I could not find anything in English. But I have translated some and it does seem he is a balanced writer that neither praised Robespierre or considers him a heartless dictator(which was never what I was trying to say). I agree with this kind of historian.

Ruth Scurr: (1971-) Director of Studies in Human, Social and Political Sciences for Gonville and Caius College. Her research interests include: 17th and 18th century history of ideas; the French Revolution; Revolutionary Memoir; early Feminist Political Thought. However in all fairness to miss Scurr her book "Fatal Plurality" does devote a lot of its pages to condemning Robespierre's actions she shows his good side through intentions and goals/personal background. So overall a fair interpretation of the man not depicting him as an evil mustache twirler super villain but does condemn his actions pursuing his goals. So it isn't fair to hold her up as a champion of Robespierre by using only part of the point of her writing.

Francois Furet: (1927-1997) Furet, a disillusioned ex-Communist, published his classic, La Révolution Française in 1965-66. It marked his transition from revolutionary leftist politics to liberal Left-center position, and reflected his ties to the social-science-oriented Annales School. His works include Interpreting the French Revolution (1981), a historiographical overview of what has preceded him(which is the work you cited). It does not express his views in that excerpt you posted. In fact it explains the popular views before he began writing and how he is different. That he neither believes Robespierre was a Saint(as the Marxists do). Or that he was a Brutal heartless monster(as the Right wing historians of the time often did). He is a fair writer and does show that Robespierre was a tyrant, just not a heartless maniacal sociopath either(which is pretty much what I've been trying to say)

So here is what I mean when I say the majority do find Robespierre to be tyrannical. You used a Marxist revisionist as your primary source. Marxist interpretations of history a extremely far off from the common view of any history. Most historians are fairly balanced. Not that man though. He even supports the terror!! It is in the interests of Communists and Socialists to make Robespierre a Saint because he was one of the furthest left political leaders of western history(and look how his rule turned out for people). So it is in the best interest of Marxists to put a positive spin on anything he did so that people in the western world don't associate extreme Leftist politics with Robespierre's radicalism and reign of terror.

You're other citations and their authors do little to support or defend Robespierre. Most of them actually do consider him to either be tyrannical, or at the very least take things too far. They only defend him mainly on character, intentions, and goals. Not on his deeds during the terror. Their general consensus is that he did things in pursuit of a greater good and was in fact a good man himself.

You must note that the majority of people who find good in Robespierre are from Far-Left schools of thought(as seen from bolded commonalities). And those who confess to his wrongdoing. But still claim him a great man have a tendency to be more moderate leftists. The extreme left being an extreme minority of historians

The popular depiction of Robespierre is balanced and in the center politically(as most of your authors tried to achieve). The general consensus is he was a tyrant. But motivated by a greater good and high ideals thus nowhere near an evil man(which is what I've been trying to say!). So if you count this view(which is 3/4 of the people you cited) along with the far right historians(who also consider Robespierre a tyrant but far more harshly). The VAST majority of historians concede he was a tyrant in some way shape or form. I by no means took a leap of faith on that one.

You just can't take a citation from one man in a radical school. And then use only 1/2 of the arguments of other authors to support that claim when that is not what the other authors were trying to get across. So when you say Historians disagree. Period. What you should have said is "I found one radical that disagrees". One radical does not many historians make. Even if you included all Marxist historians it would still be a very small minority.

So I don't see where I was wrong? Just because you cite something doesn't mean it is the general consensus or the truth. Don't believe everything you read.

Just to prove a point:
The Walrus Was Paul: The Great Beatle Death Clues by R. Gary Patterson

Paul McCartney really is Dead: the last testament of George Harrison

Here are a full book and documentary that could be cited if you wish to prove/argue Paul McCartney of the Beatles died in 1966 and his death was covered up and he was replaced with a lookalike who had plastic surgery to look identical to Paul(even though Paul McCartney is still alive today and this claim is completely ridiculous)

You can put anything in print. Doesn't mean it's true.
You apparently take great effort in labelling everything and everyone. I do not judge. I do not see Marxist, Capitalist, Socialist, etc. I have my own views and principles, of course, and these may be completely opposite to theirs, but ultimately it does not matter. If I am not tolerant of other views, then I am nothing but a fanatic.That which matters most, in my opinion, is to openly confront all the views and ideals, to lay everything on the table, so to speak. Plurality, tolerance and respect, those must be the pillars of our society, otherwise people may start believing that only the victors of military confrontation can write history.

Just to give you an example: to this day, there are some views that still defend that the Nuremberg Trials were nothing but the victors (Allies) condescendingly judging the losers (Nazis) of the conflict. The defendants even tried to pass down that same thesis. Well, there was some undercurrent of disgusting hipocrisy, putting the north-americans, with their very own little Apartheid back home, in front of a jury to assess guilt in regard to crimes against Humanity. But nonetheless, the defendants had rights and those rights were carefully respected. In fact, several of them were discharged, and justice was effectively carried out with propriety.

I never said I agreed with, or though Robespierre to be innocent. I don't like to repeat myself, but I remember underlining that I merely wished to present the fact that there are other views out there, and these also deserve to be known and accounted for. That is plurality. I though that, well into the XXI century, multiplicity of opinion was a question of common sense, but apparently not. And ultimately, I did not require convincing, since I never said I agreed that Robespierre was innocent.

DumbGamerTag94
07-30-2014, 05:58 PM
@POP_WW_2008

But you did claim that.....

On the topic of Robespierre being a Templar someone said this:
"Makes more sense that Robespierre is a Sage, the Cult Of Supreme Being anyone? Sounds Juno related."

In response you said this:
"Are we talking about the same Robespierre? Maximilien de Robespierre? One of the most influential figures of the French Revolution, advocate against the death penalty and for the abolition of slavery, strong supporter of equality of rights, universal suffrage and the establishment of a republic?" This has no citations or anything so this must be your own writing/own opinions.

Then after my post you said this:
"One thing I do agree with, it's easy to blame Robespierre for everything during the Reign of Terror, he was the obvious spokesperson of that brutal movement, but like I said before, historians have claimed that, in truth, his direct/indirect involvement was never proven."

So you never said that then?

And then I showed all the ways his direct/indirect involvement had been proven. It's not that he didn't do these things that these "historians"(in truth only 1 of your 4 historians says he was not responsible for these things) claim he had no part in(he actually did and 3/4 of your own cited authors agree with this not to mention it's recorded historic fact). The argument he presents is not that he isn't responsible....but that it was good and the right thing to do! That author supports the terror, execution of royalty, seizure of power, etc and idolized Robespierre(not any bias there?). Yet you accuse me of bias? That I don't accept other views? While the whole time I'm trying to get across that the truth is in the middle!!!! I'm trying to take views into account. But that does not mean taking the view of the most extreme minorities and taking it to heart as what must be true. The claims of Marxist historians are absurd at the least and twisted/occasionally outright lies. You have to look at the extreme left, the extreme right, and the middle and find the things that are common between them to get to the real truth.

I don't disagree with you're ideas of seeing all sides. In fact I support the same. It just seemed to me you were going about it in a way that greatly favors one extreme side. And even bent the works of 3/4 of the authors in support of the radical. While all 3 do not in fact agree with that and say Robespierre went way too far. And when you said Robespierre's direct/indirect involvement can't be proven(which as I have shown is false). That is what I take umbrage to. Not weather you hold another view or not I could care less. Just the facts need to be viewed as facts not one historians opinion about said fact.

And really you're comparing the holocaust to segregation??? While both are horrible I will agree to that. But I don't think keeping people separated can be put in the same category as rounding up and murdering millions of people just because you don't like them. That's like saying a broken arm is the same as amputating an arm. Neither is good and it's a similar injury but they are by no means the same.

And as for categorizing people yes unfortunately that is the way the world works. People bend stories and leave out facts to suit their interests. If you pretend to not recognize difference then all you are doing is blinding yourself to the propaganda that every camp is spouting! We have to label these people to know that we are not falling for their drivel. So it is the duty of a responsible historian to categorize authors as Marxists or Leftists or Capitalists, Socialist, anarchists, royalists, or what have you because it's important to know what perspective they are looking at an issue from. We have to categorize so that we can balance. If you take citations from the extreme Left. You then have to cross reference that with an author of the opposite opinion on the extreme right. That way you find the common ground between the two. Getting to the real truth that lies somewhere in the middle. You have to label so you know where on the spectrum to counterbalance from. If we don't recognize these differences we end up with a heavy tilt in one direction or the other.

It's the same reason why when I get my news I watch coverage from MSNBC(Liberal)and FOX(Conservative). They both rattle on and spew their propaganda but they can't change the facts. So when you compare the two you arrive at the truth of it.

That's all I'm asking you to do here. I'm sorry if I misunderstood. But it just seemed that you were coming from only one side on this so I felt I had to give it balance. Else risk people being brainwashed into nonsense half/truths and radicalism.

joelsantos24
07-30-2014, 06:27 PM
(...)

And really you're comparing the holocaust to segregation??? While both are horrible I will agree to that. But I don't think keeping people separated can be put in the same category as rounding up and murdering millions of people just because you don't like them. That's like saying a broken arm is the same as amputating an arm. Neither is good and it's a similar injury but they are by no means the same.

(...)
This just made my day. So, are you calling me a Nazi, now? God forbid.

I was not comparing anything, merely refering to the bitter irony of having a clearly sectarian government assessing guilt on another sectarian government. Did you miss that too? Why do you not hit the books, in order to find out how many poor innocent african-americans have been killed and dragged on the streets by their fellow (white supremacist) americans? The Nazis had their swastikas, the Americans had their white-sheets over their bodies, and yet, they both dragged entire familes out of their houses and killed them.

Too harsh of an example of irony? Well, I am strongly against the death sentence, obviously. Imagine a judge, condemning a man that killed another person. Who is going to judge the man who condemns the murderer? And the executioner, for that matter? One passed the sentence, and the other carried it. One act is called murder, while the other is called justice.

Ultimately, you have misunderstood me completely, and if you have not realized it by now, then it makes no sense for this to continue.

DumbGamerTag94
07-30-2014, 06:57 PM
This just made my day. So, are you calling me a Nazi, now? God forbid.

I was not comparing anything, merely refering to the bitter irony of having a clearly sectarian government assessing guilt on another sectarian government. Did you miss that too? Why do you not hit the books, in order to find out how many poor innocent african-americans have been killed and dragged on the streets by their fellow (white supremacist) americans? The Nazis had their swastikas, the Americans had their white-sheets over their bodies, and yet, they both dragged entire familes out of their houses and killed them.

Too harsh of an example of irony? Well, I am strongly against the death sentence, obviously. Imagine a judge, condemning a man that killed another person. Who is going to judge the man who condemns the murderer? And the executioner, for that matter? One passed the sentence, and the other carried it. One act is called murder, while the other is called justice.

Ultimately, you have misunderstood me completely, and if you have not realized it by now, then it makes no sense for this to continue.

Wow really dude?

Where did I ever call you a nazi? I simply said you are comparing two very different things. In America lynchings were carried out by small groups of radicals. While in Germany it was state sponsored and en masse.

To put it in numbers 3,446 African Americans were lynched between 1886-1968. While in Germany and German controlled areas roughly 11,000,000 people were murdered under legal directive in the short time from 1941-1945. The numbers are not even comparable.

I love how you find one sentence or paragraph you don't like and jump all over it just to ignore my overall argument. Every time you are proven wrong or look foolish you simply change topic or ignore everything as if it never happened. You must be the most ignorant person ive ever met. So quick to criticize others and act holier than thou. But someone calls you out and you behave like an ignorant child. Hell I even agreed with you on principal and yet you still precede to try and find fault rather than accept you were wrong or agree on anything.

You're either a huge troll or just ignorant. I don't have to explain myself to you more than I have. You can't talk to you( even though you claim to listen to all sides(as long as it supports you).

joelsantos24
07-30-2014, 07:37 PM
Wow really dude?

Where did I ever call you a nazi? I simply said you are comparing two very different things. In America lynchings were carried out by small groups of radicals. While in Germany it was state sponsored and en masse.

To put it in numbers 3,446 African Americans were lynched between 1886-1968. While in Germany and German controlled areas roughly 11,000,000 people were murdered under legal directive in the short time from 1941-1945. The numbers are not even comparable.

I love how you find one sentence or paragraph you don't like and jump all over it just to ignore my overall argument. Every time you are proven wrong or look foolish you simply change topic or ignore everything as if it never happened. You must be the most ignorant person ive ever met. So quick to criticize others and act holier than thou. But someone calls you out and you behave like an ignorant child. Hell I even agreed with you on principal and yet you still precede to try and find fault rather than accept you were wrong or agree on anything.

You're either a huge troll or just ignorant. I don't have to explain myself to you more than I have. You can't talk to you( even though you claim to listen to all sides(as long as it supports you).
Thank you very much for such invaluable praise.

It seems literally impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you, because you keep making you own assumptions and I have to keep repeating myself over and over again. The ironic part, is that I never disagreed with you, I merely presented other existing views, that is all. I never said I had facts, but you seem to be the only one to have them, which is fine by me. I did not set out to disprove anyone or anything, I only presented other arguments. And this is boring me to death, having to repeat myself constantly.

You were the one who kept attacking me with barrages of texts, when I did not even intend to argue, in the first place, but rather remind people here of a different existing perspective. And I focused on a single part of that huge text you wrote (again), because the rest did not interest me. Why? Again, we go full circle back at the beginning, so let us see if the general idea remains this time around: I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH YOUR VIEWS, I MERELY OFFERED ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE FROM OTHER HISTORIANS, SO IT DID NOT SEEM REASONABLE TO ME, TO KEEP APPROACHING AND FEEDING THE SAME VICIOUS CIRCLE ALL OVER AGAIN, OK?

I was being sarcastic with the numbers thing, but come on, numbers aside, both societies were sectarian, period. Hence, the irony. Get it? To justify less blame or less harm, simply on the basis of significantly lesser casualties, is an aberration. And, AGAIN, I was not comparing anything, both actions are disgusting and repulsive, in my humble opinion.

So, thank you for the kind compliments, thank you for implying I am a troll, an ignorant and whatever else. Thank you for misunderstanding and misinterpreting my every post and my every sentence, leading you to presumptuously assume everything you did about me. I would say that I am ultimately wrong, but I do not even agree with the views on Robespierre that I chose to remind here, I just find value in different perspectives. But yes, I have to be wrong somehow, because despite loving history and knowing a lot about it, I am a mere Chemistry PhD. student, so what do I know about it? I will take my leave now. I will leave this Thread to it's rightful owner. Thank you again.

Locopells
07-31-2014, 12:44 AM
Guys, this is exactly the kind of thing Widow posted about this morning:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/907076-*IMPORTANT*-Regarding-Trolling-Spamming-Hi-jacking-the-Forums

On the off chance you haven't seen it, I'll give you the chance to comply, but note the first and ONLY warning bit...