Historical revisionism in Assassin's Creed: Valhalla | Forums

[paddy234]

Compared to Caesar's Invasion of Gaul and Britain, where 1 million people died in Gaul, to use something that's closer to the Viking Age than yeah.

No Viking raid was as violent as Charlemagne's massacre of Saxons at Verden.



Slavery was practised across the entire Mediterranean and beyond, well before the Arabs showed up and continued even after they declined in power in that era. It's not specifically Arabic, except that they were the new rising power in that region, and so took over pre-existing economic and labor relations and expanded on it as their power grew.

There seems to be this idea among some people here, or at least an implication or assumption, that Christian kingdoms or Christian empires didn't practise slavery. I am afraid to tell you this isn't true at all.
-- The Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire which was Orthodox Christian practised slavery. The word slave comes from the "Slavic" people because the Slavs were commonly traded as slaves in the markets of Constantinople. Likewise, Slavery was common in England too during the era of King Alfred of Wessex, and it wasn't until William the Conqueror took over England that slavery was abolished there.
-- Malta which was taken over the Knights Hospitallers practised slavery for a very long time, and it wasn't until Napoleon arrived that it ended there on the Island.
-- In Renaissance Italy, slavery was practised in Florence and Venice. Lorenzo il Magnifico was a major slaveowner. AC2 scanted that of course but slavery was rife in Renaissance Italy...Ezio Auditore as a man of his class would just surely have been a slaveowner.

Sure some Christian priests and others argued against enslaving fellow Christians here and there, but you also have examples showing the Church, as in Malta, involved in enslaving people, including Turks, Jews, and even fellow Christians.

Sure some Christian priests argued against it here and there? Slavery was abolished in the west because it was incompatible with the Christian world-view. also your view of slavery is simplistic. The slavery of prisoners which was known as penal servitude for example was radically different from the racial slavery of what was regarded as uncivilized savages who were taken captive against their will during the birth of colonialism. My country was one of the first nations in the world to outlaw this slavery after we were converted to Christianity and it was because of Christianity it was outlawed, prior to that it was widely practiced. By the time of the early middle ages it was essentially outlawed across Europe of course still widely practiced just as it is widely practiced in the west today, even more so than the past.

Just servitude was practiced during times of war against the Turks and vice versa though that was considered just as they were seen as prisoners of war who were rebuilding the lands they had destroyed or fought against. This actually was permissible in modern times by the Geneva convention which allowed prisoners of war to be conscripted for labor

The racial slavery you are most likely referring to was condemned from the 15 century when it started to become more heavily practiced right up unit the 19th century in papal bulls and encyclicals
"They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (<subdiderunt perpetuae servituti>), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We ... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (<servituti subicere>). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money."

The date of this bull is from 1435, many decades BEFORE the discovery of the new world. There were many more bulls in the coming decades and centuries denouncing this slavery as immoral and threatening excommunication. Did these nations continue with their practices anyway, in many cases yes as history as shown and some clergy i'm sure would have supported it however it was never regarded as moral in the Church, slavery wasn't even recognized in the Church given the fact that some early Popes were once slaves. One has to be clear what they regard as slavery however, would the penal servant be a slave on the same level of those innocent natives taken captive?

The movement against slavery was entirely from a Christian world-view that no society that believed that man created with equal intrinsic value and dignity could reconcile itself with slavery. There were actually decent arguments for slavery, one of the most common ones was the a man who owns his labor would treat and look after it a whole lot better than he who rents his property as a wage slave. This may have been true if you look at the labor conditions during the industrial revolution that ended up leading to labor rights and the formation of unions who were formed around the movement of social justice, an ideology based on Catholic Social teaching.

If the philosophical view that all we are is a collection of cells with no intrinsic value and dignity was held during such a turbulent period of history i don't feel the philosophical arguments against slavery would have been strong and it wouldn't have been outlawed. The best argument against slavery according to such a world-view is that it doesn't contribute to human flourishing, of course the ruling elite could merely say, who cares and instantly your argument would lose merit because this argument relies on appealing to subjective sentiment

[paddy234]

That assumes that any association with a group or organization where any members commit evil/criminal/negative/whatever-you-wanna-call-them acts, makes you evil/criminal/etc.. So by those standards, those Christians and Muslims you claim were only viewed as evil because you were "viewing the world through the eyes of the deplorable"? Undeniably evil.

No an organisation can be good but where some of it's members commit evil acts while another organisation can be evil but it's members commit good deeds. What determines if it's good or bad is it's ethos. A charity that gives to the poor may have members who commit immoral actions by stealing from the collection while a gang of thieves may have members who use the money they steal to help their friends and family. In Assassins Creed game you typically behave and are allied with bad guys such as thieves, murderers and prostitutes. Sure they may do good deeds from time to time but ultimately they are bad guys otherwise they wouldn't be thieves, murderers or prostitutes.

[Greybush1982]

No an organisation can be good but where some of it's members commit evil acts while another organisation can be evil but it's members commit good deeds. What determines if it's good or bad is it's ethos. A charity that gives to the poor may have members who commit immoral actions by stealing from the collection while a gang of thieves may have members who use the money they steal to help their friends and family. In Assassins Creed game you typically behave and are allied with bad guys such as thieves, murderers and prostitutes. Sure they may do good deeds from time to time but ultimately they are bad guys otherwise they wouldn't be thieves, murderers or prostitutes.

And ofc, what you consider morally right is the objective view...

[paddy234]

And ofc, what you consider morally right is the objective view...

What is objectively morally right and wrong in the last 2000 years has stemmed from one world-view. While that has begun to change i would say even the most secular societies are still influenced by it, for example social justice, equality, human rights and dignity etc

[RHYLASS]

According to modern German justice a criminal union is every organisation build to commit crimes against Rechtsgüter legal goods of individuals or state. You may not have done anything wrong yet, but as a member of such an organisation your automagically guilty.

The tool of ostracism comes into play to whom ever see it fitting. See here as well.

To make the controversy visible, Members of any Nazi organisation are considered Unperson. Where as opposed to any organisation versus is considered sane&just.

The bad the good. We justify our deeds done based on our bias towards certain, namely our own, intentions and interests. Not based on what was/is actually done.

So who is the good one, who is the bad one is entirely down to yourself, your self-esteem, typically a vain thing I think.

edit


Related to the matter is the question of what's considered TABOO

[GameGuru2018]

Ok, I'll just ask ONE question.....If their raids were nothing more, or mainly "justified retaliation" in response to Charlemagne attacks on Paganism, then why the %$$#^^$^$@$% not only ended up ransacking Muslim populations down the Mediterranean but OTHER pagans in the East and West. Did a drunken Pict from Scotland somehow piss on a Odin Temple and they found out, resolving to avenge said offense a sea apart?


Come on, enlighten us.

Don't lump everything together!

Picts, for instance, is another big and interesting story.

It was a long term relationship.
Many scientists insist that picts came from Scandinavia themselves. They were in contact since ancient times. Sometimes trading, sometimes fighting. Very normal for the times.
Scotland is not so far from Scandinavia, there are islands between. Such big as Shetlands and Orkney. Mostly they were good neighbours.

That anti-vikings propaganda that the vikings genocided and eradicated all picts is a lie!
Deliberate pro-christian propaganda to portray vikings as bloodthirsty animals.
But very logical - only bloodthirsty maniacs could fight against good christians.

Among picts,in general, many myths and legends.
Picts later merged with sotts. Picts + Scotts = Scotland.

We shouldn't mixed everything. We're dicussing here the beginning of the vikings era. 793 and a bit later. Reasons, motivations and so on.

Saxony is important here...

Without Saxony a very important link is missed in this chain and sutuation is not clear.
Without Saxony vikings are just robbers and murderers.
Without Saxony, whether you like it or not, the game will be anti-vikings and pro-christian!

Norsemen and Saxons were always very close. Denmark and Saxony border each other. Since ancient times they married each other.

Pull that link out of the puzzle and everything falls apart.


(As for me... if there will be no Saxony in the game...I would make a cut scene, introduction in the beginning. Irminsul destroying, pagans slaughtering, or something like that.)

[paddy234]

According to modern German justice a criminal union is every organisation build to commit crimes against Rechtsgüter legal goods of individuals or state. You may not have done anything wrong yet, but as a member of such an organisation your automagically guilty.

The tool of ostracism comes into play to whom ever see it fitting. See here as well.

To make the controversy visible, Members of any Nazi organisation are considered Unperson. Where as opposed to any organisation versus is considered sane&just.

The bad the good. We justify our deeds done based on our bias towards certain, namely our own, intentions and interests. Not based on what was/is actually done.

So who is the good one, who is the bad one is entirely down to yourself, your self-esteem, typically a vain thing I think.

edit


Related to the matter is the question of what's considered TABOO

To put things simply one can decipher right or wrong actions and the likes of St Thomas Aquinas was instrumental in helping us a society in philosophical terms understand how we can reasonable interpret what is right and wrong. The morality of human acts depends on the object chosen, the intention and circumstances.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one's whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one's neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one's neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

[Greybush1982]

What is objectively morally right and wrong in the last 2000 years has stemmed from one world-view. While that has begun to change i would say even the most secular societies are still influenced by it, for example social justice, equality, human rights and dignity etc

That a fact?
Well, I guess no one told any of the many, many cultures and societies who had morals that are much closer to what is generally considered objectively morally right nowadays than Christianity had for centuries after....

[paddy234]

That a fact?
Well, I guess no one told any of the many, many cultures and societies who had morals that are much closer to what is generally considered objectively morally right nowadays than Christianity had for centuries after....

Sorry i should rephrase that, what is objectively right or wrong in the WEST in the last 2000 years. What is considered objectively right or wrong even today is still based on the world-view that we are created equally with intrinsic value and dignity. You can see this was the notions of social justice, equality, human dignity etc and our understanding of it. Now of course alot of that is changing with abortion, euthanasia etc where society now dictates when life becomes of value but you can clearly see it's influence is still there and will most likely return stronger than ever if what is happening today (relativism) doesn't work out

[RHYLASS]

An excellent reply paddy234

So when I ask to which end, does the end justifies the means?