PDA

View Full Version : Possible Antagonists in Assassin's Creed: Syndicate



Abelzorus-Prime
09-18-2015, 11:09 PM
Another list of people I think could be in Assassin's Creed Syndicate but this time it's with possible antagonists, and how I think these historical figures could play out in Assassin's Creed Syndicate. The majority of the Templars and targets in Syndicate will most likely be fictional such as Bloody Nora and Lucy Thorne, but I do think there are some historical figures they are hiding from us. Here is my previous post on historical figures who could be allies to Evie & Jacob. Previous post on who I think the Grand Master in Syndicate will be!
(http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1259449-Who-I-Think-Is-The-Grand-Master-In-Assassin-s-Creed-Syndicate-Forums)
David Brewster 1781-1868

"I am used to people challenging my ideas, in fact I live for it" - Darwin in Syndicate
https://www.eduspb.com/public/img/biography/b/brewster-.jpg

David Brewster was a Scottish physicist, mathematician, astronomer, inventor, writer, historian of science and university principal. Most noted for his contributions to the field of optics, and is also well-recognized for being the inventor of the kaleidoscope and an improved version of the stereoscope applied to photography. He also invented the binocular camera, two types of polarimeters, the polyzonal lens and the lighthouse illuminator.

Brewster's Christian beliefs stirred him to respond against the idea of the transmutation of species and the theory of evolution, and considered Darwin's work on primordial form an offensive idea to "both the naturalist and the Christian."

Brewster's strong opposition towards Darwin and his views also makes him a natural antagonist to Evie and Jacob, as it has been revealed that they are both aligned with Darwin. A possible Templar who might have been in possession of a Piece of Eden due to his several inventions and scientific discoveries. Perhaps he is the target Evie or Jacob will kill at the end of the Charles Darwin DLC mission, because he has sent subordinates in the Templar Order to kill Darwin. This could be done in a similar fashion to the Copenicus DLC Missions in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood.

Charles Longley 1794-1868

"Religion is the opium of the people" - Karl Marx
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings/images/paintings/dac/large/dur_dac_28_large.jpg

Charles Thomas Longley was a bishop in the Church of England. He served as Bishop of Ripon, Bishop of Durham, Archbishop of York and Archbishop of Canterbury from 1862 until his death.

Not much is known about the life of Charles Longley, but he did hold the most powerful position in the Church of England and died in 1868 which makes him a prospect for being a Templar in Syndicate. The fact that much is unknown about the details of his life gives the writers a lot of creative freedom to make him as engaging as they want. As a Templar he would have the whole Church of England under him, and could also be a strong opposer of Darwin's ideas. Such a position of influence over the countries religion would allow the Templars to continue oppressing the working class through the religious clergy.

Honorable Mentions:

David Livingstone - Explorer. Famously trekked through Africa and became the first European to discover the source of the Nile. A popular Victorian hero, who epitomised the age of ‘enlightened Empire’ and the quest for discovery. (Potential Templars searching for a First Civilization site or Piece of Eden)

Titus Salt - Sir Titus Salt was a successful businessman in Saltaire, Bradford, West Yorkshire. At a time when many businessmen exploited their workers, Titus Salt built a model village and had a genuine concern for his workforce. (Potential Templar in a similar manner to Garnier de Napolouse)

Alexander Bell - Scottish scientist credited with inventing the first working telephone. (Potential Templar or associate)

Altair1789
09-19-2015, 03:35 AM
Well, we know we kill a guy named Domino Brewster in sequence 2, so that might have to do with this David Brewster guy. Maybe an alternate name. Looks a bit like the guy in the painting too

for reference:

http://i.imgur.com/hke2XNR.png

Abelzorus-Prime
09-19-2015, 12:12 PM
Oh Damnation! It probably is him as "Domino" is not a common first name in Britain. I think "Domino" is the name of the file and then they just added his last name.

Altair1789
09-19-2015, 06:56 PM
Oh Damnation! It probably is him as "Domino" is not a common first name in Britain. I think "Domino" is the name of the file and then they just added his last name.

True, it's likely Domino isn't his real name, or not his name at all. The file's named "Domino_BrewsterWhiteRoom", it's weird that there's an underscore after "Domino" but not after "Brewster". Domino could be codename for something

The question is, why could an Assassin want to kill David Brewster? Why could David Brewster be a Templar?

Xangr8
09-19-2015, 07:51 PM
I thought how that Francois-Thomas Germain wasn't actually a real historical figure. I decided to look up his name on Google and well I actually found out that he was infact real. Didn't know this before. But he died in 1791 according to historical records but in 1794 in-game so the person who we might be looking for might now have exactly "died" in 1868.

VestigialLlama4
09-19-2015, 08:08 PM
I thought how that Francois-Thomas Germain wasn't actually a real historical figure. I decided to look up his name on Google and well I actually found out that he was infact real. Didn't know this before. But he died in 1791 according to historical records but in 1794 in-game so the person who we might be looking for might now have exactly "died" in 1868.

Francois Thomas Germain is a composite of the real-life silversmith (a totally honorable artist who Ubisoft unfairly demonized) and this guy, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_St._Germain.

Count Saint Germain was this charlatan who claimed to be immortal and had a vogue in the occult of the 1800s. There are stories of Saint Germain as this immortal guy who tempts people to deal with the devil.

The other Unity Templar who is an actual historical figure is Le Peletier, who was actually assassinated at the Palais Royale, as in Unity. Though the context of the original assassination makes Unity's use disturbing in the game. It's a little like say having a game where John Wilkes Booth killing Lincoln is shown as a good thing. The real Peletier was killed by a royalist right-wingers who attacked Peletier for being a nobleman who voted for the King's death and he was mourned for being a martyr. The game uses a bold faced lie about Peletier casting the deciding vote (there was no such thing, his execution had a majority) for no reason. Arno in Unity is essentially a right-wing lunatic, cryptically speaking.

Generally with Unity, Ubisoft tried to dodge the homework of the previous games, to do something suggestive. Good in theory but bad in practise. It's quite obvious that a number of Templars are actually substitutes for Robespierre (aka the real guy not the fake one in the game) and other Jacobins who were too larger in life for Ubisoft to do justice to tackle. Like La Touche actually is closer to the real Robespierre in terms of backstory than the Robespierre in the game.

Before Ubisoft filled out with interesting historical figures. In AC3, aside from Haytham, all the Templars were historical figures. Like Thomas Hickey was really the first man to be executed by the US government, he was involved in a plot to whack Washington and was an underworld guy. Nicholas Biddle also existed (and got a bit of a rough deal). Benjamin Church, Pitcairn and William Johnson as well. Charles Lee of course (though the Lee of the game and Haytham are together closer to the historical Lee than either are individually). In AC2, also mostly all historical figures. Even Black Flag.

Farlander1991
09-19-2015, 08:26 PM
I thought how that Francois-Thomas Germain wasn't actually a real historical figure. I decided to look up his name on Google and well I actually found out that he was infact real. Didn't know this before. But he died in 1791 according to historical records but in 1794 in-game so the person who we might be looking for might now have exactly "died" in 1868.

To be fair, one of the plot-points in Unity is that Germain was supposed to be dead, and as Arno has put it, 'did anyone tell him that?'.

But AC is not new to nudging dates. Like, Robert de Sable died in 1193 in real life (and not anywhere near Arsuf, probably somewhere on Cyprus as Richard gave him lordship over that), while Garnier actually died in 1192 (after Battle of Arsuf which he participated in as well). And there are cases like that in every AC I think.

VestigialLlama4
09-19-2015, 08:40 PM
But AC is not new to nudging dates. Like, Robert de Sable died in 1193 in real life (and not anywhere near Arsuf, probably somewhere on Cyprus as Richard gave him lordship over that), while Garnier actually died in 1192 (after Battle of Arsuf which he participated in as well). And there are cases like that in every AC I think.

There's also the death of William de Montferrat which is completely fictitious. It was his son Conrad de Montferrat who famously got killed by Assassins, only that happened in Tyre (though it was pretty badass, he got whacked in a Turkish bath, with all the steam around him). By the way, historians believe that this hit was ordered by Richard the Lionheart (which he denied because obviously he would deny), and from that you have the King and Altair being all chummy at Arsuf.

But generally after AC1, they became more diligent and they avoided fudging details too much, and only using minimal artistic license. Like AC2, the Pazzi conspirators were killed by angry mob, (the image of Francesco de'Pazzi's body hanging by the side of Palazzo Vecchio was based on a drawing of Da Vinci's of the events) but here you are the one who whacks these guys personally. So the dates and general period are right. Brotherhood didn't have too many real targets (Octavien de Valois and Juan Borgia the Banker are fictitious) but Cesare really did die in Viana. In AC3, the dates and circumstances are accurate. Like John Pitcairn really did die in Bunker Hill, though he got shot by an African American soldier rather than whacked by Connor here. Nicholas Biddle did go down with the Randolph. Charles Lee's death is the vaguest thing, but yeah he did die an alcoholic and destitute which that final cutscene beautifully puts across.

Black Flag was the most accurate one in terms of dates and circumstances. Very specific incidents that we see throughout the game happened in near about the same time and place. Benjamin Hornigold disappeared at sea, here you go and kill him. Blackbeard's last stand is this iconic event. Rackham and Vane's mutiny. Black Bart's "muddy waters" speech was something he really did say and that outfit he wears (Crimson Damask) is the one he wore at the time of his death.

Farlander1991
09-19-2015, 09:33 PM
There's also the death of William de Montferrat which is completely fictitious. It was his son Conrad de Montferrat who famously got killed by Assassins, only that happened in Tyre (though it was pretty badass, he got whacked in a Turkish bath, with all the steam around him).

Conrad was originally supposed to be the target, btw. Though the devs somewhere said that they chose William because apparently they found documents where it said he was supposed to be in Acre in 1191 (and William did die in 1191).


(Octavien de Valois and Juan Borgia the Banker are fictitious)

Juan is not fictitious, though the real one died in 1500. It's this guy. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Borja_Lanzol_de_Romaní,_el_menor) And while Octavian is fictitious, the house de Valois is real and was active in Italy at the time.


Black Flag was the most accurate one in terms of dates and circumstances.

Yeah, the only death that was shifted that I can think of is that of Josiah Burgess who didn't die in 1719 (Cockram did, though). He's pretty minor character though, and it's actually lampshaded in the game database itself.

EDIT: Actually, I'm sorry, that's the Juan Borgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Borja_Lanzol_de_Romaní,_el_mayor) and he indeed died in 1503. There's two of them. Maybe there's somehow combined in the game? Don't remember now. But, anyway, Juan Borgia existed one way or another. Two of them, in fact.

VestigialLlama4
09-19-2015, 09:48 PM
Conrad was originally supposed to be the target, btw. Though the devs somewhere said that they chose William because apparently they found documents where it said he was supposed to be in Acre in 1191 (and William did die in 1191).

Close enough, I mean that's the AC test of authenticity. If he died in this year and this place, you get to kill him.


And while Octavian is fictitious, the house de Valois is real and was active in Italy at the time.

I know de Valois was real. This was a time when the French were really involved in Italy. So Valois position in Italy makes a great deal of sense.

As an aside, its interesting that Syndicate's director Marc-Alexis Cote said that the Victorian era was similar to AC2's Renaissance in that it was a time of peace and there was no war. I think he meant that as a reproach to earlier games (especailly AC3) focusing on battles. But actually this period of the Renaissance was very bloody, the French, the Spanish all declared open season to carve out territory and the Venetians were fighting the Ottomans as usual (which Piri Reis and Ezio discuss in Revelations). We don't actually see most of it but its there certainly, like its there in the background of Savonarola's Bonfire DLC and Brotherhood of course has Cesare Borgia laying Siege on monteriggioni and the background of the game has him being in Romagna expanding territory. It's kind of interesting that people neglect these details in remembering earlier titles.


EDIT: Actually, I'm sorry, that's the Juan Borgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_de_Borja_Lanzol_de_Romaní,_el_mayor) and he indeed died in 1503. There's two of them. Maybe there's somehow combined in the game? Don't remember now. But, anyway, Juan Borgia existed one way or another. Two of them, in fact.

The Borgia were a large family after all. So its easy to get confused. The only ones people remember are the terrible trio of the Pope, Cesare and his sister.

Abelzorus-Prime
09-20-2015, 03:12 PM
Even during the 1860s Britain was involved in a lot of wars and violence, but what I think MAC means is that with these time periods the main focus isn't the wars and battles where as with the American Revolution and the French Revolution, an important part of that is the violence and battles. Though when someone thinks of the Renaissance, they think of the Art not the Italian Wars, and when someone thinks of Victorian London and the Industrial Revolution, they think of the Literature based around the time and technological advancements.

As you said the wars and battles during these eras were in the background and not the main focus of that era.

VestigialLlama4
09-20-2015, 03:39 PM
Even during the 1860s Britain was involved in a lot of wars and violence, but what I think MAC means is that with these time periods the main focus isn't the wars and battles where as with the American Revolution and the French Revolution, an important part of that is the violence and battles. Though when someone thinks of the Renaissance, they think of the Art not the Italian Wars, and when someone thinks of Victorian London and the Industrial Revolution, they think of the Literature based around the time and technological advancements.

As you said the wars and battles during these eras were in the background and not the main focus of that era.

It was certainly a focus for the people living in that time, Machiavelli especially. I was just pointing out how perception can mischaracterize earlier games. But during the Renaissance, war was there across Italy. And in AC2, you come to Florence in Bonfire and find it a warzone essentially. Brotherhood opens with an actual battle and siege, so war is not entirely absent there at all. In AC1, set during the Crusades, you don't exactly tour the battlefields but you do have one sequence, Battle of Arsuf, set there. The funny thing is there isn't enough war in UNITY, not even to the extent of AC1.

It's just that there's this sentiment among developers (taking from what some fans have said) that AC3 made a mistake in trying to innovate and actually show war in a big way. When that was actually an evolution from AC1 and the Ezio games.

In the Victorian era, there was no war in England and London certainly. This was a century of peace in the 1800s, which it did not have in the 1700s (you had Jacobite rebellion) and the 1900s (two world wars). So yes this is a time of peace definitely, at least for the English at home. The real wars were in other countries and the Empire. You had Opium wars, 1857 and rebellions in Jamaica, the Mahdi Revolt, the Afghan War.

Abelzorus-Prime
09-20-2015, 04:33 PM
I know it was a focus for people at the time, but that is besides the point. The Renaissance isn't known for the Italian Wars so it was pushed in the background, and there was hardly any war or battles in Florence at the time. There wasn't a war or any battles in Britain, but they were involved in many wars or battles during the Victorian era in other countries as you said, but most people don't care!

There were wars and battles happening during the Victorian era and the Renaissance, but they are not factors which makes them the most appealing to audiences. Where as with the American Revolution and the French Revolution, the war and violence is more of the draw.