I've seen a lot of these kinds of arguments going on in the forums, especially after AC3 released. Everybody seems to be jumping on the Templar bandwagon with the "Templars = order, Assassins = chaos" line. But where exactly was it suggested that the Assassins wanted to abolish ALL forms of government? The Templars are all about consolidating power until everything is under their own control, whereas the Assassins want a leader who looks after the needs of the people, regardless of whether or not they're affiliated with the Assassins. Neither of them are wholly correct, and I'm not even saying the Assassins are better. But Ezio was chummy with the Medici, Pope Julius II, and Suleiman the Magnificent; hell, even Connor (the painfully naive deliverer of the "freedom is peace" speech) supported George Washington and the Continental Congress. To say that they're anarchists who want absolute freedom is complete crap.
The AC4 devs summed up the Templars vs. assassins conflict pretty much exactly the way you described (they called them "benevolent dictators vs. compassionate anarchists") which is a huge oversimplification IMO. It's a neat soundbyte but doesn't really accurately describe either ideology. (The Templars are so benevolent, they supported Hitler in WW2. The assassins are such anarchists, they helped Agostino Barbarigo rise to power as Doge of Venice after his brother's death.)
And even then, it's not true "anarchy"... There's still a person/group they're trying to put in power. It's not like they're just tearing down the government with no plan for reconstructing it.Originally Posted by Assassin_M Go to original post
Well both sides of the coin have advantages and disadvantages. And they carry it forward with them in the event that side takes place. For example if assassins win , they bring freedom and anarchy at the same time , If the Templars win , they bring control and Absolute monarchy. We have to realize that both systems carry the good and the bad with them as a whole the ying and the yang, the light and darkness.Originally Posted by LoyalACFan Go to original post
The Assassins are not anarchists per se. That would be an oversimplification, although "nothing is true, everything is permitted" may sound quite anarchic. Again, it depends on the interpretation of the word anarchy. Literally, it means something along the lines of a society without a leader, which is kinda ironic since the Assassins have always had quite a strict leadership. Also, I think it depends on which game you're referring to. I'd say the first game portrays the most anarchic attitude, and with each new game it's getting more and more diluted. Then there are of course the modern day Assassins who at least to me seem to be again more anarchic. Then again, if the Assassins fight for freedom and free will, it doesn't mean automatically an anarchy. They don't defy political authority, but they do fight against the oppressors.
I'm not arguing the merits of either philosophy, I'm just saying that the Assassins are not anarchists at all. If they were anarchists, they would want to abolish government, but instead they simply want to put a decent leader at the helm who respects the will of the people. As opposed to the Templars, who want to be in control to keep the people in line.Originally Posted by avk111 Go to original post
Not exactly. They were trying to stoke the people's discontent with British rule, but they didn't want a war. Remember John Pitcairn's death speech.Originally Posted by rileypoole1234 Go to original post