PDA

View Full Version : Why does everyone say the Assassins are anarchists?



LoyalACFan
05-07-2013, 09:58 PM
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.

SixKeys
05-07-2013, 10:18 PM
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.)

Assassin_M
05-07-2013, 10:23 PM
It is bull crap...the Assassins will only create anarchy when it is necessary, i.e revolution. Russian Revolution, most likely french Revolution and the American revolution...

LoyalACFan
05-07-2013, 10:36 PM
It is bull crap...the Assassins will only create anarchy when it is necessary, i.e revolution. Russian Revolution, most likely french Revolution and the American revolution...

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.

ze_topazio
05-07-2013, 10:57 PM
I remember Al Mualim telling Altair that leaders and order are necessary.

avk111
05-07-2013, 11:03 PM
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.

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.

she-assassin
05-07-2013, 11:06 PM
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.

rileypoole1234
05-07-2013, 11:07 PM
Didn't the Templars sort of start the American Revolution with trying to trigger the Boston massacre?

LoyalACFan
05-07-2013, 11:15 PM
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.

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.

LoyalACFan
05-07-2013, 11:19 PM
Didn't the Templars sort of start the American Revolution with trying to trigger the Boston massacre?

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.

ArabianFrost
05-07-2013, 11:20 PM
It is bull crap...the Assassins will only create anarchy when it is necessary, i.e revolution. Russian Revolution, most likely french Revolution and the American revolution...

They always muck it up though and I should know. Seriously, none of these revolutions worked out, including the Egyptian one. I don't know if assassins are that incompetent.

avk111
05-08-2013, 09:59 PM
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.

its nit that they want to put a decent leader, because that would be defying their whole purpose they don't choose, they leave the people to make that choice , they want the voice of the people to be the verdict, thus if the people want anarchy they will get it :)

its the paradox of social behavior.

LowikQC
09-05-2013, 03:46 AM
That's not so easy to understand, beause you have different of assassins. For exemple: russian assassins suported leninism but they fought Stalinism. Present assassins supported Democrats during the 2000 elections, but fought against capitalism. If I have to give a political ideology for assassins, it would be anarcho-socialism because they fight for the people, for equity, for freedom, and the most important: against Monarchism, capitalism and of cours, fascism. I don't say that all assassin's been anarchist, take ezio for an exemple: he was a rich bourgeois and defended the medicis family. But he finally, durin his final speech to the people of Florence during the Savonarola crisis, he toke a moor "anarchist" speech. So, it's my personal idea of the assassins, of cours.

Jexx21
09-05-2013, 04:30 AM
I wouldn't say that the Assassins fight against any political ideology. They fight for keeping free-will.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 07:59 AM
Well, Ezio does say in AC2 "We don't need anyone to tell us what to do", that's a pretty anarchic statement, isn't it?

I think the benevolent dictator/compassionate anarchist is oversimplification to get people up to speed quick. But, on other note, (I'm not a major a politics, so correct me if I'm wrong), isn't anarchy more about voluntary cooperation and opposition to involuntary/enforced ruling rather than abolishment of government entirely? Because with that in mind I can see how Assassins can be called anarchists.

LightRey
09-05-2013, 08:13 AM
Well, Ezio does say in AC2 "We don't need anyone to tell us what to do", that's a pretty anarchic statement, isn't it?

I think the benevolent dictator/compassionate anarchist is oversimplification to get people up to speed quick. But, on other note, (I'm not a major a politics, so correct me if I'm wrong), isn't anarchy more about voluntary cooperation and opposition to involuntary/enforced ruling rather than abolishment of government entirely? Because with that in mind I can see how Assassins can be called anarchists.
I think that interpreting statements such as this one as being 'anarchist' is a mistake. You're taking it out of context. Ezio brings this up because he wants people to stand up for themselves, to not so readily accept authority. He's not arguing that people should not be ruled, but that they shouldn't allow themselves to be against their will​.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 08:16 AM
He's not arguing that people should not be ruled, but that they shouldn't allow themselves to be against their will​.

Which is pretty much what I'm saying about anarchism in the paragraph below that ;)

roostersrule2
09-05-2013, 08:19 AM
Which is pretty much what I'm saying about anarchism in the paragraph below that ;)Being an anarchist is being an agent of chaos ie. The Joker

LightRey
09-05-2013, 08:23 AM
Which is pretty much what I'm saying about anarchism in the paragraph below that ;)
Oh right. About that, no, that's not anarchism. Anarchism is about abolishment of government entirely, as you put it.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 08:31 AM
Oh right. About that, no, that's not anarchism. Anarchism is about abolishment of government entirely, as you put it.

Okay. But it's still not about chaos, as rooster puts it. And it's still about voluntary cooperation.

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism)


1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

Oxford (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anarchism)




belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.



I bolded the word organization because that still means order of some kind.

And with there being many branches of anarchism, I'm sure there's one variation that will fit the assassins perfectly.

LightRey
09-05-2013, 08:53 AM
Okay. But it's still not about chaos, as rooster puts it. And it's still about voluntary cooperation.

Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism)



Oxford (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anarchism)



I bolded the word organization because that still means order of some kind.

And with there being many branches of anarchism, I'm sure there's one variation that will fit the assassins perfectly.
Yeah rooster's wrong. Anarchism is a word that comes from the Greek 'αρχος', which means 'ruler'. The prefix 'αν-' means 'no' or 'a lack of', so basically it's the view that there should be no ruler (whith the term 'ruler' being very broad, referring to organizations such as governments as well as individual people). The many variations of anarchism come mostly from how this is to be interpreted, i.e. determining when someone or something can be called a ruler.

Regardless, it can't be applied to the Assassins, even with the varying interpretations. The reason for this is that any and all interpretations of anarchism are very specific political views, while the Assassins' views dictate politics itself. This is because the Assassins views are not normative views, they're not about what should or should not be, but about what is. The Creed is an observation. It does not say what the world should be like, it tells us what the world is. The actions of the Assassins are therefore not about shaping the world into what the order wants it to be, they're about letting it be what it is. (Keep in mind that they're not trying to protect what the world is, as if it might change, because what the world is according to the Creed is something that can't be changed. The Assassins are simply guiding it in the right direction (generally by killing Templars).)

Btw, I wouldn't put so much faith in dictionaries, they're hardly reliable for encyclopedic purposes. If you want a proper analysis of anarchism, grab an encyclopedia or preferably a detailed book or article on the subject.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 09:08 AM
The actions of the Assassins are therefore not about shaping the world into what the order wants it to be, they're about letting it be what it is. (Keep in mind that they're not trying to protect what the world is, as if it might change, because what the world is according to the Creed is something that can't be changed. The Assassins are simply guiding it in the right direction (generally by killing Templars).)

The Assassins want the people to see the world for what it is, to 'dispel the illusion' as Altair put it once, which in itself is shaping the world into what the order wants it to be. Opening up peoples' minds, teaching them to think for themselves, to value their own path - I disagree that all that is just 'letting the world be'.

LightRey
09-05-2013, 09:22 AM
The Assassins want the people to see the world for what it is, to 'dispel the illusion' as Altair put it once, which in itself is shaping the world into what the order wants it to be. Opening up peoples' minds, teaching them to think for themselves, to value their own path - I disagree that all that is just 'letting the world be'.
You misunderstand what that means. The Creed tells the Assassins what the world is, and what they want is for all to see the same, to know that nothing is true and everything is permitted. Take a good look at what that means. It doesn't say "Nothing should be considered true and everything should be permitted" does it? Take Ata´r's conversation with Al Mualim about The Creed for example:

Al Mualim: “Before you go, I have a question for you: what is the truth?”
Alta´r: “We place faith in ourselves. We see the world the way it really is, and hope that one day all mankind might see the same.”
Al Mualim: “What is the world then?”
Alta´r: “An illusion, one which we can either submit to, as most do, or transcend.”
Al Mualim: “What is it to transcend?”
Alta´r: “To recognize nothing is true and everything is permitted, that laws arise not from divinity, but reason. I understand now that our creed does not command us to be free; it commands us to be wise.”

Here Alta´r explains plainly that the world is an illusion, and to transcend it means to understand that nothing is true and everything is permitted (i.e. to understand that it is an illusion and what that entails). Now take a look at Ezio's explanation of The Creed to Sofia:

Sofia: “You mentioned a creed before; what is it?”
Ezio: “Nothing is true, everything is permitted.”
Sofia: “That is rather cynical.”
Ezio: “It would be if it were doctrine, but it is merely an observation of the nature of reality. To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with the consequences, whether glorious or tragic.”

Here Ezio clearly explains how The Creed is an observation (as opposed to doctrine). Then he explains just what that observation is.

So, to make my point (again), 'to dispel the illusion' does not mean shaping the world according to an ideological anarchist view, it means to make people understand that the world is an illusion.

roostersrule2
09-05-2013, 09:25 AM
No, anarchism is chaos I saw it while watching cartoon network in 2003.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 09:33 AM
So, to make my point (again), 'to dispel the illusion' does not mean shaping the world according to an ideological anarchist view, it means to make people understand that the world is an illusion.

I understand that just fine, and I did not mean any anarchist view in my previous post (and, just so you know, I'm not trying to prove that Assassins are anarchists, I was just trying to say that maybe calling them anarchists isn't that far of a stretch, but I don't have enough knowledge about anarchism to continue the discussion on that particular matter). What I'm trying to say is that making people understand that the world is an illusion is still shaping the world according to the Assassins' views - that everybody is better off seeing that the world is an illusion.

LightRey
09-05-2013, 09:50 AM
I understand that just fine, and I did not mean any anarchist view in my previous post (and, just so you know, I'm not trying to prove that Assassins are anarchists, I was just trying to say that maybe calling them anarchists isn't that far of a stretch, but I don't have enough knowledge about anarchism to continue the discussion on that particular matter). What I'm trying to say is that making people understand that the world is an illusion is still shaping the world according to the Assassins' views - that everybody is better off seeing that the world is an illusion.
You're missing the point. You're using a different interpretation of the meaning of 'the world' than the Assassins are. You can't simply use the term in a different context and expect to be able to say the same things. To the Assassins, the world is the illusion Alta´r speaks of (note that later Assassins might not call the world an illusion anymore, as different times and cultures result in different ways to describe what Alta´r calls the illusion). Dispelling the illusion isn't changing the world in that sense, as dispelling the illusion does not change the illusion.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 10:01 AM
You're missing the point. You're using a different interpretation of the meaning of 'the world' than the Assassins are. You can't simply use the term in a different context and expect to be able to say the same things. To the Assassins, the world is the illusion Alta´r speaks of (note that later Assassins might not call the world an illusion anymore, as different times and cultures result in different ways to describe what Alta´r calls the illusion). Dispelling the illusion isn't changing the world in that sense, as dispelling the illusion does not change the illusion.

I'm not missing the point you're saying (and I'm not trying to argue it), but you're right about context and interpretation part. When you said in your post about Assassins not trying to shape the world and letting it be I took the meaning of that outside of the ideological view of the Assassins, which is why I took issue with it.

EDIT: I guess that essentially means that I missed the point, lol.

LightRey
09-05-2013, 10:18 AM
I'm not missing the point you're saying (and I'm not trying to argue it), but you're right about context and interpretation part. When you said in your post about Assassins not trying to shape the world and letting it be I took the meaning of that outside of the ideological view of the Assassins, which is why I took issue with it.

EDIT: I guess that essentially means that I missed the point, lol.
At least we agree xD

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 10:21 AM
At least we agree xD

Yeah, though our conversation in a way proves Haytham right, don't you think? :D

LightRey
09-05-2013, 10:40 AM
Yeah, though our conversation in a way proves Haytham right, don't you think? :D
Nah I wouldn't say so. It is the common Templar mistake. They think that nothing is true means that creating an illusion themselves is the best way to go, but in doing so they fail to see that that changes nothing.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 10:47 AM
Nah I wouldn't say so. It is the common Templar mistake. They think that nothing is true means that creating an illusion themselves is the best way to go, but in doing so they fail to see that that changes nothing.

I mean more what he was saying about lack of consensus which leads to dissent and conflicts. I mean, sure, in the end we agreed, but we also might've been continuing the argument.

LightRey
09-05-2013, 11:07 AM
I mean more what he was saying about lack of consensus which leads to dissent and conflicts. I mean, sure, in the end we agreed, but we also might've been continuing the argument.
Well, a lack of consensus can lead to dissent and conflicts, sure, but what the Templars fail to see is that creating an illusion which rids humanity of that is no different from killing everyone. It doesn't so much solve the problem as it tries to get rid of its symptoms. The Assassins see that knowing the world is an illusion is a means to transcend the illusion. If all of mankind were to transcend the illusion, the problem would be solved.

Azurefeatherfly
09-05-2013, 11:42 AM
The Assassins will always despise the idea of Power being held in the hands of the few. If every single human being can actually possess enough self -awareness to empathize with every other person, then many if not all the problems would become solvable. The Assassins are idealists that believe in the possibility that humanity can overcome human nature and impulse to understand the empathic logic of Do not do unto others what you do not want done to yourself. If we can overcome human nature and impulse to a point where we resolve everything through empathy then The Need To Be Ruled By Others would cease to exist.

However human history is very much on the cynical side of the Templar's ideology, humanity must be shackled, controlled and taken care of so that we do not surrender ourselves to the savage nature of humanity that has been a part of our very identity since the dawn of our existence. It is very much a realistic possibility that humanity will destroy itself and thus this artificial form of peace and happiness known as determinism will always be the goal of those in power.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 11:44 AM
If all of mankind were to transcend the illusion, the problem would be solved.

Only it will never be solved, because there will always be people who want to submit to the illusion. As Haytham puts it, "The responsibility is too great for them to bear." But, also, if the Templars win, there will always be people who would want/find a way to break from it. Neither side can win, really.

LightRey
09-05-2013, 11:53 AM
Only it will never be solved, because there will always be people who want to submit to the illusion. As Haytham puts it, "The responsibility is too great for them to bear." But, also, if the Templars win, there will always be people who would want/find a way to break from it. Neither side can win, really.
That's conjecture on his part (and yours). It's entirely possible that all might see through the illusion one day, especially with the guidance of the Assassins, while forcing an illusion upon all is irrelevant to "the nature of reality" as Ezio puts it. The Templars think they can solve the problem by being masters of the illusion, not realizing they are just as much subject to the illusionist nature of the world as those upon whom they force their illusion.

Azurefeatherfly
09-05-2013, 12:11 PM
That's conjecture on his part (and yours).

Do you mean me? If so, I did not realize I was a part of the conversation. I just wanted to offer commentary on the two competing ideologies that are present.

Can humans overcome ourselves? I think the conflict in Syria and its resolution might give us a glimpse into the gains and losses of that goal. At least this time people have learnt their lesson from WMD Iraq. I guess that is good thing if we can continue to resist being duped into the Syrian Civil War.

Farlander1991
09-05-2013, 12:11 PM
Do you mean me?

Not you, Haytham :)

Azurefeatherfly
09-05-2013, 12:14 PM
Not you, Haytham :)

Thank you.

@LightRey, my apologies for that.

LightRey
09-05-2013, 06:38 PM
Not you, Haytham :)
Precisely.


Thank you.

@LightRey, my apologies for that.
No problem. :P

Kayewla
11-24-2013, 06:05 PM
As a student currently working on a master's degree in history and a bachelor's degree in political science, I would certainly say that the Assassin ideology corresponds almost perfectly with the anarchist ideology. Neither are for outright chaos, both fight for universal liberty and equality, while promoting close-knitted societies. This is the same philosophy the real Syrian branch of the Assassins are believed to have followed.

Farlander1991 was very close in his post: "[...] isn't anarchy more about voluntary cooperation and opposition to involuntary/enforced ruling rather than abolishment of government entirely?". That is how anarchism has, in practice, operated during the last few centuries - being an important ideological factor in most of the Atlantic Revolutions. It is by far the most all-encompassing ideology of western civilization, having influenced all our constitutions, and is without a doubt the most stable political foundation of modern society.

The idea of anarchism as advocacy for chaos and a society free of laws is rather old-fashioned and considered misunderstood today. That concept is more akin to the nihilist philosophy, and even the social darwinist philosophy, which is completely different. It's very important to mention though, that anarchism has many branches which advocate very different ideas - but the ground rule being the skepticism towards the government. This makes the ideology also not as specific as many others, and more open for personal interpretation. Basically, the negative connotation given to anarchism is unjust and a result of miseducation by ideologically driven political campaigns

Ancom112
12-30-2015, 11:55 PM
As someone who identifies as an anarchist communist, Not all use of power and authority is justified, anarchisim is essentually questioning the legitimacy of a hierarchical power, social or otherwise, if It does not meet its berdon of proof and or oppress people that power is to be dismantled, peacefully or not, beyond that anarchisim divides into many other schools of thought for example anarcho communisim, a form of anarcho socialisim, one of many schools of libertarian socialisim
Given that anarchisim is anti oppressionist it can be argued that some assasins could be anarchists of some kind but someone like ezio, a capitalist that proves to be a chalenge

Defalt221
12-31-2015, 06:50 PM
Didn't assassins of paris support dictators? King Louis was supported by Assassins..

Al Mualim made treaty with Salahuddin.

Ezio allowed the new Pope to take over and create order.

Connor....uh...where's Charles Lee?

VestigialLlama4
12-31-2015, 09:19 PM
Didn't assassins of paris support dictators? King Louis was supported by Assassins..

Well Mirabeau, the real-life figure and in-game Mentor of Assassins, was a backer of Constitutional Monarchy on English Lines. He felt that the Royal Family would play a key role in French life and society and that they couldn't be dislodged. The problem in real-life and which the game doesn't get into at all is that King Louis XVI hated any checks on his power and authority.

And well, the Assassins seem to have been matey with Napoleon Bonaparte, Dictator and Emperor.


Al Mualim made treaty with Salahuddin.

And Altair fist bumped with Richard I but later played a role in whacking Genghis Khan...so?


Ezio allowed the new Pope to take over and create order.

And he was friends with an Ottoman Prince and basically allowed the Ottoman Court to railroad over the ex-Byzantine Empire.


Connor....

Connor builds an ideal community in the homestead but basically decides to back George Washington.

Defalt221
01-01-2016, 05:22 AM
So Assassin's don't attack dictators unless they turn out to be Templars... And Genkhis Khan was killed because he attacked masyaf.

VestigialLlama4
01-01-2016, 07:35 AM
And Genkhis Khan was killed because he attacked masyaf.

Genghis Khan's grandson attacked Masyaf. Genghis himself hadn't reached Syria yet. Altair and Gang decided to go to Mongolia to whack him as a nice family vacation.


So Assassin's don't attack dictators unless they turn out to be Templars...

Basically, the main games are really timid, too timid to properly voice an anarchist perspective which is to be expected for a mass cultural product.

There's also the limitations of history, coping with the demands of the genre and expectations. You want to show all these famous historical figures even if logically, there's no reason why Altair and Richard the Lionheart should share the same space and not have Altair slay that warmongering fool right then and there, there's little reason for the Assassins to ally with Lorenzo de'Medici either, but the game wants to sell the whole Renaissance fantasy.

Within the games, the Assassins are made palatable to the audience by selling them as the lesser of two evils. So we are supposed to see the Templars as being really violent and extreme. This leads to hypocritical double talk, in that the Assassins are ostensibly atheist but the Templars tend to be more openly atheistic than the Assassins because we are supposed to see them as "the bad guy". Like at the end of AC2, Ezio calls Rodrigo for being the Pope and badmouthing the Bible, and Rodrigo says, "So what? I did this for the power." The real Rodrigo Borgia had good reasons to be corrupt, he came from Spain and possibly he descended from a family of converted Jews. As a Pope he was a man of great religious tolerance who opened his arms to Jewish refugees and gave them fair treatment without conversion, none of this comes in the game. If the Assassins were true to their Creed, they would support Rodrigo.

This gets really out of hand with UNITY because in complete opposition to the actual historical record, a lot of audiences thanks to Scarlet Pimpernel and A Tale of Two Cities (Both of them being British fiction) are supposed to see the Revolution as a bad thing, and sympathize with Marie Antoinette even if she and her husband were traitors to her people. This is essentially the same thing as making a movie about the American Civil War where the South are the victims and we are supposed to see Abolitionists and Freedmen as Templars.

I think the only games that come close to anarchist is Black Flag, and also AC1. The others are all over the map.