PDA

View Full Version : Question about John Pitcain



Hood2theBurbs
10-10-2014, 07:32 AM
Hello all Forummers, I've recently been replaying AC3 and I have just finished assassinating Pitcairn I find myself puzzled by his last words. He says he wanted to mediate peace between the Patriots and the British but then he shows up with a whole frakking army behind him?? He never asks for parlay or even try to mediate, so how exactly can he say that? By the time Connor ends Pitcairn's life the war has already kicked off and I still don't see him making any attempt at peace so what gives??

Historically I know that Pitcairn was second in command of the British forces sent to capture and destroy the rebel stores at Concord and was present for the Battle of Lexington. Also why is Connor blamed for starting the Revolutionary War? Was it not the "Shot Heard Around the World" that started the initial Battles of Lexington and Concord? Can any of you shed some light on this, did I miss something?

Farlander1991
10-10-2014, 08:01 AM
We see the things mostly from Patriot perspective, but still there's enough to see that his words weren't without truth.

John Pitcairn came to Lexington and Concord with arms because he knew that the patriots had tons of weapons, he couldn't be in a position of power (which is what was needed for a successful for him parlay and patriots giving up the weapons) without a significant force behind him (to talk with Adams/Hancock and take away the weapons). But by the time he came, the rebels were fully armed and ready to fight. Pitcairn actually tried to make them lay down their arms (if you replay Lexington and Concord mission you'll hear that), but then all hell just broke loose.

Before we assassinate him, he was passive in Boston, trying to hold on and, presumably, not let the war go anywhere else, hold off the Patriots until things could be figured out. But Connor's actions have forced him to get out in the open and make an active advancement. Had Pitcairn survived the battle, he probably would be able to somehow arrange for the war's end, because the Patriots were weakened and British were essentially under his command, but because he was dead, the British continued the attack and the Patriots had no reason not to fight back.

Connor is directly responsible for empowering the Sons of Liberty in Sequence 6, and making sure that the rebels are fully prepared for a fight in Sequence 7, not to mention killing the only Templar who was directly in the British ranks and could influence them against the war, which is why he was blamed for the beginning of the Revolutionary War.

Hood2theBurbs
10-10-2014, 08:16 AM
Huh, I never really looked at it that way. And I guess that the game simply does a bad job of showing that. Because when Pitcairn shows up all he does is tell the Patriots to disperse and suddenly the minutemen are getting shot at by British soldiers. Wasn't it Pitcairn who ordered the ships in the harbor to shell the Patriot positions at Breed Hill? because if so that is hardly passive. Maybe I am to hasty lay it all at Pitcairn's feet.

Farlander1991
10-10-2014, 08:27 AM
Huh, I never really looked at it that way. And I guess that the game simply does a bad job of showing that

Yeah, the game's plot has a lot of tiny little details and is pretty intricate, but some things just didn't get the attention they needed in favor of some additional historical cameo, so AC3's story is told in a messy way.


and suddenly the minutemen are getting shot at by British soldiers.

Truth be told, there's no indication of who shot first, just like in history (and if you talk with Adams in Congress, Connor will say the same thing). The camera doesn't show anybody holding a gun when the first shot is fired.


Wasn't it Pitcairn who ordered the ships in the harbor to shell the Patriot positions at Breed Hill?

Yes, but it's the Patriots who launched an offensive on Boston and laid siege in the first place. The ships fired so the Patriots wouldn't be able to get any closer (otherwise they would be able to get into a full offensive and attack/capture the city).

Hood2theBurbs
10-10-2014, 08:46 AM
Yeah, the game's plot has a lot of tiny little details and is pretty intricate, but some things just didn't get the attention they needed in favor of some additional historical cameo, so AC3's story is told in a messy way.



Truth be told, there's no indication of who shot first, just like in history (and if you talk with Adams in Congress, Connor will say the same thing). The camera doesn't show anybody holding a gun when the first shot is fired.



Yes, but it's the Patriots who launched an offensive on Boston and laid siege in the first place. The ships fired so the Patriots wouldn't be able to get any closer (otherwise they would be able to get into a full offensive and attack/capture the city).

Yes I like AC3's story quite a bit but it's presentation is sloppy at best

You're right brushing up on my Revolution history Pitcairn distinctly ordered his men not to fire. And in game it is all blurry and confusing

Duh, wow that was so obvious I should have thought of that on my own.

Any way thanks for clearing that up for me I appreciate it :)

Aphex_Tim
10-10-2014, 08:51 AM
Truth be told, there's no indication of who shot first, just like in history (and if you talk with Adams in Congress, Connor will say the same thing). The camera doesn't show anybody holding a gun when the first shot is fired.


Solo shot first.

TheAsianJuan
10-10-2014, 08:52 AM
The way I look at AC3 is that Connor was only doing things to keep his village and people safe. One thing to remember is that the templars started the war during the Boston Massacre where Charles Lee shoots in the air and then the Redcoats fire on the protestors. However, Haytham points to Connor after Charles Lee shoots to notify the redcoats that it was the Native American boy who shot. That is the mission where you learn about notoriety.

If I remember correctly, during his "spirit journey" with Juno, she basically said join the Assassins and stop the Templars to save your people. Juno basically lies to him about his village and people being safe if he stopped the templars (I don't want to spoil anything, but that mission is mainly about the present day version of the story). It is interesting because the templar's goal was basically to control the Colonies because Haytham was unable to find the Grand Temple which is why he journeyed to America in the first place. They had people on both sides: Charles Lee who they were hoping to be the Commander and Chief instead of George Washington and of course, John Pitcairn. For me, it is only speculation why John Pitcairn said those things before he died, because right after, Connor finds the letter in Pitcairn's pocket that the templars are going to assassinate George Washington.

TheAsianJuan
10-10-2014, 08:56 AM
What about the Boston Massacre Mission? Charles Lee shoots first and that is when the redcoats fire on the protestors. Haytham also lets the redcoats know that Connor shot first when he points at him right after Charles Lee shoots.

Farlander1991
10-10-2014, 09:10 AM
Boston Massacre certainly has played a part in leading to the war, but it wasn't in the Templar's plans to start one. The Templars wanted there to be dissedence in the minds of the colonists, unhappiness with the British rule, so they could arrange an easier transition from Brits to Templar independence, so to speak.

Speaking of Pitcairn's letter, things are pretty straightforward. Pitcairn was commanding the British forces, so if our Charlie would also be commanding the Patriot forces, then there would be no need for a bloodbath as the Templars would essentially have control over both of them.

After Pitcairn's death plans have changed in a little way but not by much - since there was no way to stop the war now, Templars still wanted to kill Washington so Charles would be in charge when the Patriots gain independence.

TheAsianJuan
10-10-2014, 09:21 AM
Boston Massacre certainly has played a part in leading to the war, but it wasn't in the Templar's plans to start one. The Templars wanted there to be dissedence in the minds of the colonists, unhappiness with the British rule, so they could arrange an easier transition from Brits to Templar independence, so to speak.

Speaking of Pitcairn's letter, things are pretty straightforward. Pitcairn was commanding the British forces, so if our Charlie would also be commanding the Patriot forces, then there would be no need for a bloodbath as the Templars would essentially have control over both of them.

After Pitcairn's death plans have changed in a little way but not by much - since there was no way to stop the war now, Templars still wanted to kill Washington so Charles would be in charge when the Patriots gain independence.
Yeah, especially after Pitcairn's death; both sides were too deep into the war.

AherasSTRG
10-10-2014, 09:59 AM
Solo shot first.

Priceless.