PDA

View Full Version : Assassins creed books



MetalX2010
05-28-2010, 04:57 PM
I just found out that there are 3 books about Assassins creed ;/ and I want em so bad so can anyone help me where can i get them?
I found the latest, "Renaissance", in Amazon but the older ones ("The Invisible Imam" and "The Eye of Heaven") ran out or something..

anyway what is the books' connection with the game's story? .. is it based upon? or does it continue the story? if so then can it be referred to as an "official" storyline?

EmperorxZurg
05-28-2010, 05:08 PM
The invisable Imam and The Eye of Heaven were discontinued because the actual descendants of the Hashashin "advised" Ubi to stop writing books about 'em. It was on the Author's blog. Don't know why they didn't "advise" to stop the game too though...

The Books are based upon the game yes, and Like the Gears of War series of books can fill some plot holes and gives a look into parts of Altair's life that we didnt see

phil.llllll
05-28-2010, 06:08 PM
Here's the author's blog post about it:

http://darkush.blogspot.com/20...0/why-even-care.html (http://darkush.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-even-care.html)

I really was really bummed to hear about it when they annouced they were cancelling it. Not sure why they cancelled the books if they didn't cancel the game - though they did change some dialogue in the game before release so maybe they weren't too pleased by that either.

JohnConnor2012
05-28-2010, 07:52 PM
I was going to commend Ubi for their cultural sensitivity, but the blog was pretty interesting (until it veered off into Cyrilic and then knob ads) in suggesting the Ismaili community themselves were divided about their heritage and how it should be presented. Personally, I'd have been prouder to have an assassin as an ancestor than a crusader (read up about 'King Tufour' for insight into who were the barbarians in this period).

All that said, it does look like we've been spared some seriously bad prose along with those plot disclosures.

EmperorxZurg
05-28-2010, 08:17 PM
Hey John, let's not clump all the crusaders into one bunch. In real life, the Templars were actually a honorable organization dedicated only to protecting Christian artifacts. Then the fifth King to join it, overtook it and corrupted it along with his army. Not all Crusaders were bad

JohnConnor2012
05-29-2010, 04:44 AM
I can see this being a long discussion, not entirely OT.

No doubt most crusaders were sincerely seeking salvation in the Holy Land, but came there as invaders, carving out the Outrimer kingdoms as their own feifs. Jerusalem had been religiously integrated between Christians, Jews and Moslems (albeit under Moslem rule, with unbelievers taxed) when the Crusaders took it, slaughtering pretty much indiscriminately. Christians often fared as badly in the face of their 'allies' as Moslems - witness the sack of Constantinople, which the 1st Crusade were originally raised to relieve.

As to the Templars, their original brief to protect pilgrim caravans en route to Jerusalem soon transmuted into raiding others, making it impossible to maintain periods of lasting peace in the Holy Land. This was no doubt their intention, as they wanted no compromises with non-Christians. Each side would enslave or ransom the others soldiery after battle (Saladin's citadel in Cairo was built by crusader PoWs), but the Templars were so fanatical they had to be massacred instead.

Of course, there were atrocities on both sides, as you'd expect of the early-Medieval era. Why I mentioned King Tafour was that only the crusaders were accompanied by an irregular mob that subsisted by cannibalism. That must have impressed the Islamics of the region almost as little as 'the Franks' having to taught such basics of civilization as bathing.

Returning a little to the topic, I understand that on an 'enemy's enemy is my friend' basis, the assassins actually allied with later Crusader forces for a time, which might be another awkward element of their heritage.

EmperorxZurg
05-29-2010, 09:27 AM
man I hate going off topic, but we gotta talk about this until the discussion finishes! lol

Actually, there were already Crusaders within the Holy Land. But the invading ones called for assistance when the Moslems had started driving them back, so their allies within became Crusaders (In a non-invaderish way). And yes they killed all, but that's not the Military once again. The King of England, whose name escapes me since it's like 5am, had taken control over all Crusading forces and told them to kill all for they had been exposed or whatever. The military had to so that was the King's fault.

And the Templars actually only wanted to protect pilgrims and artifacts, their raiding of others was made in a defensive strike after a moslem group murdered 50 pilgrims and the Templars protecting them. It was never their original plan. The Templars weren't even really soldiers originally. They were like the shaolin monks, devout believers of their faith but knew how to defend it. It was when the goverment came and forced them into a branch of the military forces and actually put non-christians inside it.

One thing I always found funny though was when Saladin was seiging a fortress once and it was the besieged's daughter's birthday, Saladin called for a complete stop of war for her birthday lol.

Wouldn't that be awesome in the game? Assassins and Templars teamed up to kill.... oh wait

JohnConnor2012
05-29-2010, 11:57 AM
The Crusades certainly bought strange bedfellows: just as assassins leagued with crusaders, so the Moslems did with the Mongols (despite what they did to Damascus) to extirpate the assassins. Didn't stop the Egyptians finally expelling the Mongols a few decades later though...

My point isn't that the Crusaders didn't successfully settle the Holy Land (half their point in coming there) but they invaded in the first place. There were pied noir in Algeria that didn't think they were invaders either, having been there a few generations. They were hardly nice people either. Look up what I said about Jerusalem and Constantinople, etc., and you'll see what I mean about their merits compared to those they opposed.

Agreed, the Templars were a monastic order--warrior-monks--but that hardly disqualifies them as also being religious fanatics determined to stoke conflict in the region. Their special (Papal) privileges and control over what passed for banking through Christendom in the early-Middle Ages marked them out as rapacious and arrogant even in Europe, which led to their downfall.

EmperorxZurg
05-29-2010, 04:40 PM
ya, I've researched the cities lol, I have copies of the reports about them in a like 3 books dedicated to the Templars. And they weren't really religious fanatics. They joined up to protect these things after Moslems and other "sand pirates" had been killing and raiding them and was supposed to be just defense, but once the Pope seized control who was under the control of the King, they were forced to change. Once they were made into a branch of the military, prisoners were forced to serve as a Templar, like community service hardcore lol. THAT was what corrupted them. And their downfall was because of the vast amount of treasure they had found when excavating ruins and such. King Henry IV wanted it and framed them. There are tons of documents on it.