Historical revisionism in Assassin's Creed: Valhalla | Forums

[VestigialLlama4]

Just because i claimed Christianity (The Catholic Church) to be overall a good and to have civilized Europe

A claim that most historians, including a few Cahtolics, would not be so bold to make. There was good done by some Catholics, and some people in the Church no one will deny that. But "overall good" and "civilized Europe"...the former is a subjective perspective (just as much as the claim that the Church was "overall bad"), and the latter is laughable for all the stuff it implies.

If the Catholic Church civilized Europe, does that mean Europe before the Church, that of Rome, and Greece before it, was uncivilized?

Fun fact, Europe's biggest country and its largest population is Russia which historically has not been a Catholic nation (and was in fact founded by the Vikings).

i have just assumed you and other posters will at least would understand this complex history and yet out of that would still be able to see how it brought stability and helped the west flourish

Again it's supremely debatable that "stability" was brought by Christianity. Because the evidence and historical consensus is that it didn't, and it was also beyond Christianity's ability to do so.

And likewise "helped the west flourish" is ridiculous. Western Europe was poorer than Eastern Europe for the entirety of the Middle Ages. The richer and more stable nations in Europe in that period was the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire govered by Non-Catholics as well as Moorish Spain governed by Non-Christians. Likewise, for most of history wealth travelled from the East (China, India) to the west and European states and Europe imported more than they exported during the entirety of this time.

It's also a debatable thing that "helped the west flourish" is something Christians should be proud of doing, especially the Catholic Church. Today the Church's future is outside Europe and North America, where attendance is declining. Their current Pope comes from Argentina, and if the Church wants any future in Africa, Asia, South America and elsewhere, bragging about "helped the West flourish" is not gonna be of any help.

My point about kingdom come deliverance was compared to an Assassins Creed game this game actually feels you are in Bohemia in the time period.

AC games never showed or depicted Bohemia so it's a ridiculous comparison anyway.

How people behaved, how they behaved spoke, their entire world-view.

Them speaking English, including modern English, immerses you in their world-view? Because Kingdom Come Deliverance is in English you know. A language Bohemians didn't speak at all.

Do you know what Odyssey would look like if Ancient Greece was accurately depicted culturally. I can assure you Ubisoft wouldn't risk the hate mail for the offence if would cause

Ancient Greece has never been represented accurately in any artistic depiction for more than 1000 years. To do so you would have to show the rampant infanticide and exposure of children with defects which happened in that time and in the Roman eras. You would have to show the pederasty of Spartan culture and Athenian culture. You would have to show the very slow battle and travel times of that time. As a philosopher named Vico pointed out, the values from the classical era are so alien to people even in the 1700s when he was talking about, that people always translate the past in some version close to their understanding just so they can begin to talk about stuff.

If you were to do anything completely accurate it would be completely alien in every way. And not of any interest.

What matters about historical fiction is communicating "why this era is so interesting, why is it important" and so on. That counts. Historical accuracy and authenticity can help to communicate that, but they are a means to that end, and not the end in itself.

[cawatrooper9]

Hey guys,

While I think that discussions on how Assassin's Creed depicts history can be some of the most fascinating ones to be had, they can also be sensitive matters.

I'll be keeping an eye on this thread, but you can refer to the forum rules to refresh yourselves. Best practice is to simply treat each other with respect.

Also, take note that SixKeys is a member of the Mentors Guild, not a Ubisoft employee. The Mentors Guild members are great members of the community, and I'm sure SixKeys would be happy to have a conversation with any of you on these forums about this topic and others. Just wanted to clear up that misconception, though.

Finally... I think the original post here took some pretty big leaps. While the trailer definitely seems to support the idea that history is more complex than the records left behind, I think that's a pretty common assumption. At least in my experience, my history professors almost entirely taught that the record of history is written with bias and egotism.

I don't think that's a condemnation or endorsement of either party. Just an observation that the "Vikings" (already a negative connotation for "Norsemen") probably have a simplified reputation due to many western depictions of them.

[RHYLASS]

Certainly not a black&white picture thats right. I agree with Greybush1982.

[Olympus2018]

I think that people overestimate how "barbaric" the Vikings were while raiding Britain. The Arabic Slave Trade, the Ottoman Turkish aggression in South and Eastern Europe, The Mongol invasion of Eastern Europe and other cultures from Asia and North Africa were far more aggressive and lethal than the Vikings or the Nazis or anyone else really. The Nazis lasted 12 years only and the Vikings did not kill millions of people, unlike the Mongols, Arabs and Turks who are known to oppress conquered nations for over 5-6 centuries, each!

[VestigialLlama4]

I think that people overestimate how "barbaric" the Vikings were while raiding Britain.

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.

The Arabic Slave Trade,

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.

[NrVr7]

I wished there will not be historical revisionism, or at least only on 2-3 things (just to adapt for the game), but I know there will be a lot, to adapt our way of thinking and see the world today, and that disturb me, A. LOT.

[Greybush1982]

Just so you know your argument is just as fallacious and indefensible as Vikings were "pagans crusaders defending their faith". It's the same argument, having a simplistic and thoroughly indefensible idea of civilization and culture.

You have absolutely everything in common with the poster you are talking against.

[Greybush1982]

The only obvious thing about Assassins creed is that it's bad guys vs bad guys. There are good guys but you don't play as one and sometimes end up killing them

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.

[LDS_Darth_Revan]

While our group of Vikings might be the good guys, or even just some of them since I sense conflict among our people, for the Vikings overall I imagine there will be good people and bad people,. Same with the English. It's not like one side will be Assassins and the other Templars, since throughout the series both ideologies have had members among all sides. And for people who aren't part of the two ideologies, it'll just reflect reality. For example with KIng Alfred Ubisoft said will start as seeming like a villain since we are viewing him from the Viking perspective, but as the game goes on all the nuances and complications will appear with him.

[paddy234]

A claim that most historians, including a few Cahtolics, would not be so bold to make. There was good done by some Catholics, and some people in the Church no one will deny that. But "overall good" and "civilized Europe"...the former is a subjective perspective (just as much as the claim that the Church was "overall bad"), and the latter is laughable for all the stuff it implies.

If the Catholic Church civilized Europe, does that mean Europe before the Church, that of Rome, and Greece before it, was uncivilized?

Fun fact, Europe's biggest country and its largest population is Russia which historically has not been a Catholic nation (and was in fact founded by the Vikings).



Again it's supremely debatable that "stability" was brought by Christianity. Because the evidence and historical consensus is that it didn't, and it was also beyond Christianity's ability to do so.

And likewise "helped the west flourish" is ridiculous. Western Europe was poorer than Eastern Europe for the entirety of the Middle Ages. The richer and more stable nations in Europe in that period was the Eastern Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire govered by Non-Catholics as well as Moorish Spain governed by Non-Christians. Likewise, for most of history wealth travelled from the East (China, India) to the west and European states and Europe imported more than they exported during the entirety of this time.

It's also a debatable thing that "helped the west flourish" is something Christians should be proud of doing, especially the Catholic Church. Today the Church's future is outside Europe and North America, where attendance is declining. Their current Pope comes from Argentina, and if the Church wants any future in Africa, Asia, South America and elsewhere, bragging about "helped the West flourish" is not gonna be of any help.



AC games never showed or depicted Bohemia so it's a ridiculous comparison anyway.



Them speaking English, including modern English, immerses you in their world-view? Because Kingdom Come Deliverance is in English you know. A language Bohemians didn't speak at all.



Ancient Greece has never been represented accurately in any artistic depiction for more than 1000 years. To do so you would have to show the rampant infanticide and exposure of children with defects which happened in that time and in the Roman eras. You would have to show the pederasty of Spartan culture and Athenian culture. You would have to show the very slow battle and travel times of that time. As a philosopher named Vico pointed out, the values from the classical era are so alien to people even in the 1700s when he was talking about, that people always translate the past in some version close to their understanding just so they can begin to talk about stuff.

If you were to do anything completely accurate it would be completely alien in every way. And not of any interest.

What matters about historical fiction is communicating "why this era is so interesting, why is it important" and so on. That counts. Historical accuracy and authenticity can help to communicate that, but they are a means to that end, and not the end in itself.

A claim that most historians including Catholics would be bold to make? Come on mate, your not serious, i'm not some teenage gamer who gets his knowledge of the world from reality TV and Marvel movies, how on earth could i believe that. If a catholic didn't think their faith brought about a greater good why would they even be Catholic in the first place? I have pretty much read two main historical interpretations of European history, one popular view based on pop culture propagated by wannabe edgy celebrities that simplifies all of Pre renaissance culture by defining it as a dark age devoid of progress, where people believed in such silliness that the world was flat which again is complete rubbish and that little good came from this time period, i'm sure your very aware of that view as we all are. The other is the more intellectual and complex view of the defining moments throughout European history that allowed a large number of diverse European nations previously heavily imbued with savagery to become great centers of reason, art and theology.

There is no consensus that it did not bring stability, on that view i believe you are purposely being dishonest as even the most secular of historians would agree it brought civility to Europe through a dark period of chaos, they may agree of disagree as to how much stability.

A bit of Advice but Please stop pretending that the world thinks this way, thats the reason we have a Nutter like Donald Trump in power, it's because you guys live in your own bubbles convinced everyone thinks the way you do and get surprised when the majority don't think the way you do and vote out defiance in horror. The history is there, one might not like it but please stop talking about the consensus was the Christianity didn't build the west, that is nonsense, it was the entire ETHOS behind western culture and still is today ironically even in secular nations though philosophically it is disintegrating which is bringing it's own share of problems

As for Catholicism civilizing Europe, if you claim to have any basic understanding of history which i know very well you do you would know what i meant. After the fall of the Roman Empire much of Europe fell into disarray and was easy target for barbarians and murderers. The great centers of learning and libraries on the continent were destroyed and if it wasn't for the likes of Irish monks for the most part safe from this chaos copying the pagan and Christian writers and preserving the texts of the likes of homer and Aristotle the west would never have been shaped the way it was. The hospital System, University system, orphanages in the west after the fall of Rome were the result of the ethos of a new Christian Europe. Villages, towns and Cities built themselves around the Church which was at it's centre, this is still true for most of the west today even in secular nations you can still see the remnants of it.

Did those Christian nations do evil deeds, of course, man is sinful, while we are required to strive towards virtue it is easier said than done and such people committed many evil acts however from our understanding of Justice, equality, human dignity, morality etc in the west came directly from the Christian world-view and the west therefore at it's best flourished under it, there were still dark periods as there were Golden ages.

Yes i know AC games never depicted Bohemia, my point with the comment was that KCD depicted it's historical setting in a way no AC game ever has. Assassins Creed is an arcade type adventure game with super duper moves, where characters are forgettable and the historical setting feels more like a Hollywood interpretation than reality, it's a VERY fun game but no mature adult would take it seriously nor it's setting. As for Ancient Greece never been depicted artistically in the last 1000 years, once again come on mate, seriously??? I know you aren't serious with that comment especially given the fact that it was Greek philosophy that had a significant influence of Christian philosophy and literature especially during the renaissance. I didn't claim nor expect it to be completely accurate to EVERY detail, even KCD wasn't completely accurate to every detail. It was accurate in a way that allowed you to feel immersed in the time period while also finding the experience fun and relateable.

Assassins Creed has always been about making the historical setting it is based in most relateable to their target audience by trying to bend to their sensibilities as much as possible so as not to offend, even bending so far that the setting they try to represent becomes mere fantasy. Thats just what Assassins Creed is though, one would have to be naive to get any history from it other than the unbelievable attention to detail with historical architecture.

Ubisoft would be afraid of going the route of KCD as even though it would be depicted with greater realism they would fear a reaction from those claiming they are sexist or racist for not being inclusive enough, it's ridiculous and the fact that they bend the knee to such a crowd is the reason their games have now become a very arcadey mythological experience.