PDA

View Full Version : Timeline (1191 and 1476)



CanterburyTales
05-13-2011, 05:19 PM
Here's something I've just noticed/started bugging me is: why the writers chose to have the game take place in 1191, with the penultimate level being the Battle of Arsuf (which took place in early September of that year) and not in 1192, the year of the Third Crusade's final battle (the Battle of Jaffa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaffa))? This would have allowed the writers to use Conrad of Monferrat as they had originally planned (instead of his father William), and matched up the death dates of the other historical characters with the death year of their historical counterparts -- Garnier de Naplouse, Sibrand, Robert de Sable, and even Al Mualim (based on Rashid ad-Din Sinan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_ad-Din_Sinan)).

Furthermore, something that has irked me for a while: why does AC 2 begin in 1476 and not 1477 (preferably sometime between early January and late May)? The reason this irks me is because in Lineage, we saw the assassination of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, which took place on December 26, 1476; this event was referenced in AC 2 in Giovanni's letters, placing AC 2 after that event. This setup still allows Ezio to be 17 at the start of the game as his birthday is on June 24.

CanterburyTales
05-13-2011, 05:19 PM
Here's something I've just noticed/started bugging me is: why the writers chose to have the game take place in 1191, with the penultimate level being the Battle of Arsuf (which took place in early September of that year) and not in 1192, the year of the Third Crusade's final battle (the Battle of Jaffa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaffa))? This would have allowed the writers to use Conrad of Monferrat as they had originally planned (instead of his father William), and matched up the death dates of the other historical characters with the death year of their historical counterparts -- Garnier de Naplouse, Sibrand, Robert de Sable, and even Al Mualim (based on Rashid ad-Din Sinan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashid_ad-Din_Sinan)).

Furthermore, something that has irked me for a while: why does AC 2 begin in 1476 and not 1477 (preferably sometime between early January and late May)? The reason this irks me is because in Lineage, we saw the assassination of Galeazzo Maria Sforza, which took place on December 26, 1476; this event was referenced in AC 2 in Giovanni's letters, placing AC 2 after that event. This setup still allows Ezio to be 17 at the start of the game as his birthday is on June 24.

UBOSOFT-Gamer
05-14-2011, 05:35 AM
you should contact the dev team. my 50 cents.

Assassin_M
05-14-2011, 06:43 AM
It was already stated that the Templars changed history to their advantage as to hide any evidence of the presence of the Assassins, and as for Ezio being 17 so what ? his birthday is in june 24th so he is 17 on the december of 1476

TorQue1988
05-14-2011, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
It was already stated that the Templars changed history to their advantage as to hide any evidence of the presence of the Assassins, and as for Ezio being 17 so what ? his birthday is in june 24th so he is 17 on the december of 1476 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never liked the Templars changed history crap...they should have kept the historical dates,that is my biggest complaint about the series.

Assassin_M
05-14-2011, 07:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TorQue1988:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
It was already stated that the Templars changed history to their advantage as to hide any evidence of the presence of the Assassins, and as for Ezio being 17 so what ? his birthday is in june 24th so he is 17 on the december of 1476 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never liked the Templars changed history crap...they should have kept the historical dates,that is my biggest complaint about the series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Sir, with all due respect, are no fan of The AC series, how do you even know that the history you read is true ? what your high school teacher taught and what what gave you.. how can you be so sure ?? even science has hidden things away that "didnt fit"

TorQue1988
05-14-2011, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TorQue1988:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
It was already stated that the Templars changed history to their advantage as to hide any evidence of the presence of the Assassins, and as for Ezio being 17 so what ? his birthday is in june 24th so he is 17 on the december of 1476 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never liked the Templars changed history crap...they should have kept the historical dates,that is my biggest complaint about the series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Sir, with all due respect, are no fan of The AC series, how do you even know that the history you read is true ? what your high school teacher taught and what what gave you.. how can you be so sure ?? even science has hidden things away that "didnt fit" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL...you've got to be kidding me...so instead of learning the possibly fake information that historians tell us we should learn the undoubtedly fake(and fictional) information from a videogame????...from your point of view, to be a fan of a game means you should believe what they show in it is true and everything else it's just a conspiracy? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ...wow,i guess your'e right i'm not a true fan of the series,like you are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif ...with all due respect your arguments are childish and stupid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Assassin_M
05-14-2011, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TorQue1988:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TorQue1988:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
It was already stated that the Templars changed history to their advantage as to hide any evidence of the presence of the Assassins, and as for Ezio being 17 so what ? his birthday is in june 24th so he is 17 on the december of 1476 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never liked the Templars changed history crap...they should have kept the historical dates,that is my biggest complaint about the series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You Sir, with all due respect, are no fan of The AC series, how do you even know that the history you read is true ? what your high school teacher taught and what what gave you.. how can you be so sure ?? even science has hidden things away that "didnt fit" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
LOL...you've got to be kidding me...so instead of learning the possibly fake information that historians tell us we should learn the undoubtedly fake(and fictional) information from a videogame????...from your point of view, to be a fan of a game means you should believe what they show in it is true and everything else it's just a conspiracy? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ...wow,i guess your'e right i'm not a true fan of the series,like you are http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif ...with all due respect your arguments are childish and stupid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Childish and stupid have nothing to do with each other, and I didnt insult you and i expected the same from you, anyways my point is, one which seems you never took the time to think about, is that some Historical events have been proven numourus times to be fabricated, as a result of either a misinterpertation or misguidence, I clearly dont recall saying that you shouldnt read the actual history and take history from a video game, Im just saying the possibility of History being fabricated for some purposes and that the basis of the game that there are some things missing in history that the game tries to put in its point of View "Nothing is True".
you sir have yet again proved that you are not a true AC fan.

TorQue1988
05-14-2011, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
Childish and stupid have nothing to do with each other, and I didnt insult you and i expected the same from you, anyways my point is, one which seems you never took the time to think about, is that some Historical events have been proven numourus times to be fabricated, as a result of either a misinterpertation or misguidence, I clearly dont recall saying that you shouldnt read the actual history and take history from a video game, Im just saying the possibility of History being fabricated for some purposes and that the basis of the game that there are some things missing in history that the game tries to put in its point of View "Nothing is True".
you sir have yet again proved that you are not a true AC fan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know the game's motto is "Nothing is true ,everything is permitted" and I know that there could be wrong information in history,but you are taking it to seriously and your arguments have nothing to do with what I said in the first post...I said I don't like the explanation that the templars changed dates and other crap like that,even if that's the game's motto ,I PERSONALLY don't like that aspect of it and would have preferred the historical dates (even though they could be wrong as you keep saying,though that is highly unlikely because,it seems ,you keep forgetting, this topic is about 2 dates that no one could have had a logical reason to alter in the first place)...and I haven't insulted you either,if some arguments are stupid doesn't mean the person who tells them is too...and who said that stupid and childish have to have something in common? these are just 2 adjectives I found appropriate about your arguments and nothing more...so the point is that I said I didn't like that aspect of the game because it's silly and the dates from this topic are not important enough so that someone ,like the templars, would have a credible reason to alter...why in the world would someone lie about the date of a battle and move it a year later?it doesn't make any sense...so before you jump blindly to conclusions read the post carefully because @CanterburyTales complaints are well founded.

CanterburyTales
05-14-2011, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
...and as for Ezio being 17 so what? his birthday is in june 24th so he is 17 on the december of 1476 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was that, the way it's presented, all of the the events between Galeazzo Sforza's assassination in Lineage and Ezio's arrival at Monteriggioni in AC 2 are taking place in the last five or six days of 1476. That kinda stretches suspension of disbelief at least a little bit.

As for Ezio still being only 17 at the beginning of AC 2, he still gets to be a minor and have his life go to Hell before he reaches adulthood.

dchil279
05-14-2011, 03:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TorQue1988:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Assassin_M:
Childish and stupid have nothing to do with each other, and I didnt insult you and i expected the same from you, anyways my point is, one which seems you never took the time to think about, is that some Historical events have been proven numourus times to be fabricated, as a result of either a misinterpertation or misguidence, I clearly dont recall saying that you shouldnt read the actual history and take history from a video game, Im just saying the possibility of History being fabricated for some purposes and that the basis of the game that there are some things missing in history that the game tries to put in its point of View "Nothing is True".
you sir have yet again proved that you are not a true AC fan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know the game's motto is "Nothing is true ,everything is permitted" and I know that there could be wrong information in history,but you are taking it to seriously and your arguments have nothing to do with what I said in the first post...I said I don't like the explanation that the templars changed dates and other crap like that,even if that's the game's motto ,I PERSONALLY don't like that aspect of it and would have preferred the historical dates (even though they could be wrong as you keep saying,though that is highly unlikely because,it seems ,you keep forgetting, this topic is about 2 dates that no one could have had a logical reason to alter in the first place)...and I haven't insulted you either,if some arguments are stupid doesn't mean the person who tells them is too...and who said that stupid and childish have to have something in common? these are just 2 adjectives I found appropriate about your arguments and nothing more...so the point is that I said I didn't like that aspect of the game because it's silly and the dates from this topic are not important enough so that someone ,like the templars, would have a credible reason to alter...why in the world would someone lie about the date of a battle and move it a year later?it doesn't make any sense...so before you jump blindly to conclusions read the post carefully because @CanterburyTales complaints are well founded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with Assassin_M, if you don't like the whole conspiracy, cover-up, "they've been lying to us this whole time" 'aspect' of the game, then you don't like the main plot of the game.

CanterburyTales
05-14-2011, 04:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dchil279:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TorQue1988:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Assassin_M:
Childish and stupid have nothing to do with each other, and I didn't insult you and i expected the same from you, anyways my point is, one which seems you never took the time to think about, is that some Historical events have been proven numerous times to be fabricated, as a result of either a misinterpretation or misguidance, I clearly don't recall saying that you shouldn't read the actual history and take history from a video game, I'm just saying the possibility of History being fabricated for some purposes and that the basis of the game that there are some things missing in history that the game tries to put in its point of View "Nothing is True".
you sir have yet again proved that you are not a true AC fan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know the game's motto is "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" and I know that there could be wrong information in history,but you are taking it to seriously and your arguments have nothing to do with what I said in the first post...I said I don't like the explanation that the Templars changed dates and other crap like that, even if that's the game's motto, I PERSONALLY don't like that aspect of it and would have preferred the historical dates (even though they could be wrong as you keep saying,though that is highly unlikely because,it seems ,you keep forgetting, this topic is about 2 dates that no one could have had a logical reason to alter in the first place)...and I haven't insulted you either,if some arguments are stupid doesn't mean the person who tells them is too...and who said that stupid and childish have to have something in common? these are just 2 adjectives I found appropriate about your arguments and nothing more...so the point is that I said I didn't like that aspect of the game because it's silly and the dates from this topic are not important enough so that someone, like the Templars, would have a credible reason to alter...why in the world would someone lie about the date of a battle and move it a year later?it doesn't make any sense...so before you jump blindly to conclusions read the post carefully because @CanterburyTales complaints are well founded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that some of you have been completely missing my point. I was simply wondering why the writers of the first game had it take place in 1191 and not 1192; they had originally wanted to have Alta´r kill Conrad of Montferrat (who in real life was assassinated by Assassins in 1192), but didn't because the game takes place in 1191, and so they replaced Conrad with his father William (who did die in 1191 in real life), even though all of the other assassination targets in the game (that were based on real people) died in 1192 in real life, again, the same year as Conrad's assassination and of the Third Crusade's final battle, the Battle of Jaffa, after which King Richard and Saladin decided to start peace negotiations (something Richard brings up in the game).

dchil279
05-14-2011, 09:09 PM
@CanterburyTales: Sorry for getting side-tracked. And yea, that is kind of puzzling why they did that.

TorQue1988
05-15-2011, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dchil279:
I agree with Assassin_M, if you don't like the whole conspiracy, cover-up, "they've been lying to us this whole time" 'aspect' of the game, then you don't like the main plot of the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I didn't say i don't like the whole "they've been lying to us this whole time" conspiracy,just Ubisoft's excuse(if that is the case and it's not just a mistake) of altering some random dates like those that @CanterburyTales pointed out,because it makes no sense at all...this is the only aspect of the conspiracy i don't like.