PDA

View Full Version : Historians Debate on UNITY - May be Spoilers -



VestigialLlama4
10-22-2014, 04:07 PM
http://www.fastcocreate.com/3037212/the-fun-violent-history-lesson-inside-assassins-creed-unity

Interesting article on the interpretations on the Revolution which the team debated on.

For those who can read French, there is another interview with Laurent Turcot:

http://www.geeksandcom.com/2014/10/16/assassins-creed-unity-entrevue-laurent-turcot-conseiller-historique/#sthash.QZQcyVaK.dpbs

The key parts that are interesting are:


In addition to Durand, Ubisoft also enlists the help of academic historians. Dr. Jean Clement Martin at the Sorbonne in Paris was a script consultant, while University of Quebec, Trois-Rivieres history professor Laurent Turcot, advised developers on the look, feel and daily life of 18th-century Paris. Dr. Martin actually influenced some significant changes in the script, helping to balance the story. "In the game, Arno isn’t a super pro-revolutionary; the Revolution is more in the background of his own personal quest and struggle," says Durand. "But Dr. Martin felt we had a bit too much of a royalist view on the Revolution. We had been trying to not seem too pro-Revolution but swung a bit too far. So we were able to shift back and give it more of a neutral view. When it comes to history, we set the games within these times and events, but don’t want to take a particular stance, instead allow players to play within these contexts and have fun interacting with it. But we didn’t want to force a viewpoint on anyone."

You know I think the main reasons games will continue to lag behind movies and books in other art forms is this desire to sit on the fence and take an imagined "neutrality" that in history never really existed. This "plague on both sides" view is equally simplistic as black-and-white-morality.

It's one reason why the American Revolution game failed since they couldn't be anti-Founding Fathers since that would piss off many people and also be unfair to history, at the same time they can't be entirely pro-Indian since that would make the game a total bummer and that also lends itself to sentimentalism. So you had a game which tours the famous moments in the game but ends on a real downer about compromise. Whereas ''Black Flag'', being a period of marginally less emotional fervor, takes a pro-Pirate viewpoint which makes the game work and gives it a real feeling.

As for the game, I think making Mirabeau an Assassin Mentor tells a lot about the direction the game is taking, where the Jacobins are going to be seen as opportunist demagogues and rabble-rousers comprised of a bunch of extremists. Still, that's the view the Anglophone colonialist media has over the French revolution as seen in books like Scarlet Pimpernel where an idiot English aristocrat saves France from its own revolution. The fact that Clement-Martin says that the script is objective(and he's a member of the Robespierre society) shows that it might not be a hatchet-job.

avk111
10-22-2014, 04:38 PM
There has been a great debate among Historians in regards to Search Results


Maximilien de Robespierre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_de_Robespierre)
Due to his studies and the way he wanted to bring virtue in the community of Paris at the times, in the game it has been confirmed he maybe the main villian, his dictatorship towards the nobels, the people, everyone who questioned the revolution , and finally towards his own colleagues.

He even declared himself a emporer/god, he makes the perfect villian, plus in the game what happend is the assassins and templars have a truce , however when Maxim (himself a templar) declares a revolution against the revolution, this he was able to throw down the leader of the templars at the time who was the adoptive father of Arno.

Im really interested to see how the game unfolds, it is very clear that King Louis and His wife will be among the victims of the templars , not to mention Arno himself was a noble, thuse the assassins will be taking a royalist view up untill there is a betrayl within the assassin order itself.

Im using my analysis of history and the trailers we have seen so far to determine how the plot of the game will take place, I still havent figured out Napolean, since in history he was away most of the time fighting against the Austrians and the enemies of the borders of France.

VestigialLlama4
10-22-2014, 08:43 PM
There has been a great debate among Historians in regards to Search Results


Maximilien de Robespierre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_de_Robespierre)
Due to his studies and the way he wanted to bring virtue in the community of Paris at the times, in the game it has been confirmed he maybe the main villian, his dictatorship towards the nobels, the people, everyone who questioned the revolution , and finally towards his own colleagues.

He even declared himself a emporer/god, he makes the perfect villian, plus in the game what happend is the assassins and templars have a truce , however when Maxim (himself a templar) declares a revolution against the revolution, this he was able to throw down the leader of the templars at the time who was the adoptive father of Arno.

Im really interested to see how the game unfolds, it is very clear that King Louis and His wife will be among the victims of the templars , not to mention Arno himself was a noble, thuse the assassins will be taking a royalist view up untill there is a betrayl within the assassin order itself.

Im using my analysis of history and the trailers we have seen so far to determine how the plot of the game will take place, I still havent figured out Napolean, since in history he was away most of the time fighting against the Austrians and the enemies of the borders of France.




Robespierre ''never'' declared himself either God or Emperor (that would be Napoleon).

- Napoleon spent the early years of Revolution near Corsica until the leader Paoli decided to fight for the Royalists and Corsican independence, while Napoleon wanted to fight for France and the Revolution, so he and his family were ran out of Corsica, their family home burned by vandals and they arrived poor in France where Napoleon managed to get a commission in the army and his merits were immediately recognized by Augustin Robespierre, the Famous man's kid brother. He didn't come into Paris until after Robespierre died though.

avk111
10-22-2014, 10:41 PM
I'll get to you regarding Napolean but first read this

The Cult of the Supreme Being (French (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language): Culte de l' tre suprÍme)a (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being#endnote_fn_a) was a form of deism (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) established in France by Maximilien Robespierre (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre) during the French Revolution (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution).[1] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being#cite_note-Jordan-1) It was intended to become the state religion (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion) of the new French Republic (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_French_Republic).[2] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being#cite_note-2)

then watch this

http://youtu.be/F_ouNRA1K-I

enjoy :)

LatinaC09
10-23-2014, 02:30 AM
Awesome article! My favorite part of AC is it's history and I can't wait to see what they've done with the French Revolution. I should have become a history major because I love it so much. AC is the perfect game in that sense.

VestigialLlama4
10-23-2014, 04:15 AM
I'll get to you regarding Napolean but first read this

The Cult of the Supreme Being (French (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language): Culte de l' tre suprÍme)a (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being#endnote_fn_a) was a form of deism (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) established in France by Maximilien Robespierre (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre) during the French Revolution (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution).[1] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being#cite_note-Jordan-1) It was intended to become the state religion (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_religion) of the new French Republic (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_French_Republic).[2] (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being#cite_note-2)

then watch this

http://youtu.be/F_ouNRA1K-I

enjoy :)

That documentary is a piece of tripe filled with wrong information and heavy bias. If you want something more objective read say, Robespierre by Colin Haydon and William Doyle. Or, R. R. Palmer's THE TWELVE WHO RULED.

The Cult of the Supreme Being was just part of the craze and fervor of the revolution, nobody got executed or pressured into converting. Robespierre's defense of it was to quote Voltaire, "If God did not exist, it is necessary to invent him." So he worked with Jacques-Louis David to create a highly popular festival. It was the height of his popularity and attended by half a million people and was also inspirational in the army.

Radman500
10-23-2014, 04:46 AM
That documentary is a piece of tripe filled with wrong information and heavy bias. If you want something more objective read say, Robespierre by Colin Haydon and William Doyle. Or, R. R. Palmer's THE TWELVE WHO RULED.

The Cult of the Supreme Being was just part of the craze and fervor of the revolution, nobody got executed or pressured into converting. Robespierre's defense of it was to quote Voltaire, "If God did not exist, it is necessary to invent him." So he worked with Jacques-Louis David to create a highly popular festival. It was the height of his popularity and attended by half a million people and was also inspirational in the army.
it seems like you are trying to defend Robespierre


the man initaited the Reign of Terror

VestigialLlama4
10-23-2014, 05:11 AM
it seems like you are trying to defend Robespierre


the man initaited the Reign of Terror

I am trying to counter false conceptions, saying that Robespierre tried to make himself "God/Emperor" is false as is that Simon Schama(author of a very poorly researched if lurid and gossipy book on the Revolution) documentary.

As for Robespierre's involvement with the Reign of Terror, well, read those two books I mentioned, you can even glance through some pages on Google Books and you'll find that the situation is not so simple.

Radman500
10-23-2014, 05:50 AM
I am trying to counter false conceptions, saying that Robespierre tried to make himself "God/Emperor" is false as is that Simon Schama(author of a very poorly researched if lurid and gossipy book on the Revolution) documentary.

As for Robespierre's involvement with the Reign of Terror, well, read those two books I mentioned, you can even glance through some pages on Google Books and you'll find that the situation is not so simple.

of course the excuse when it comes to tragedies is its always "not so simple"

same arguments for the holocaust and stalin's crimes "not so simple"


don't justify what Robespierre did

VestigialLlama4
10-23-2014, 06:31 AM
of course the excuse when it comes to tragedies is its always "not so simple"

same arguments for the holocaust and stalin's crimes "not so simple"


don't justify what Robespierre did

Look the United States of America was built on slavery and genocide of Native Americans and as AC3 showed, George Washington ordered the forced removal and destruction of several villages. Yet we don't think of the Founding Father as war criminals or compare them to 20th Century monsters because 1) Its ridiculous 2) There are existing context and filters 3) It ultimately doesn't lead to a better understanding of events. Likewise the British Empire committed atrocities in Scotland and Ireland for which its perpetrators went unpunished and even earned rewards but we prefer to understand rather than condemn them. During the 1798 Irish Rebellion, 50,000 Irish died (way more than the Reign of Terror). Robespierre at the least deserves the same courtesy of curiosity and refrain from easy judgment, especially since the reign of terror was meant to defend France from a war started by moderate Girondins, which he was almost alone in protesting.

DumbGamerTag94
10-23-2014, 06:51 AM
Woah woah woah hold the phone right now.

First off Geroge Washington NEVER forcefully removed anyone from anywhere(unless you count the British). That is a huge load of tripe right there. Yes he burned villages but only in times of war. To tribes that had declared open war on the British Empire and the United States (do not forget that and we know Connors tribe fought with the British. And we know not with certainty if they took a side in the. 7years war or not).

It was the Continental Congress that "bought" that land from the natives. Largely to pay off debts and soldiers for their service in the war. George had nothing to do with that decision.

But if you would care to get your head out of your *** you would know that George Washington did everything in his power to try and help the natives. The first treaty of the Federal US Government under Washington was the. Treaty of New York. Which attempted to recognize a sovereign Cherokee(I think) nation. That Washington hoped would create a model for other native nation states to form. And ultimately one day join the US of their own accord.

However the people didn't adhere to Washington's plans at all. And the southern states ignored the treaty. And the northern tribes went on the defensive so as not to suffer the same insult(starting the Northwest Indian War).

But Washington was anything but an Indian "genocide" activist. Get your damn facts straight before you spew such tripe and try and vaguely compare him to 20th century monsters like hitler and Stalin. Washington was a very pro Indian activist and his record as president shows that. Do some homework.

VestigialLlama4
10-23-2014, 07:27 AM
Woah woah woah hold the phone right now.

First off Geroge Washington NEVER forcefully removed anyone from anywhere(unless you count the British). That is a huge load of tripe right there. Yes he burned villages but only in times of war. To tribes that had declared open war on the British Empire and the United States (do not forget that and we know Connors tribe fought with the British. And we know not with certainty if they took a side in the. 7years war or not).

It was the Continental Congress that "bought" that land from the natives. Largely to pay off debts and soldiers for their service in the war. George had nothing to do with that decision.

But if you would care to get your head out of your *** you would know that George Washington did everything in his power to try and help the natives. The first treaty of the Federal US Government under Washington was the. Treaty of New York. Which attempted to recognize a sovereign Cherokee(I think) nation. That Washington hoped would create a model for other native nation states to form. And ultimately one day join the US of their own accord.

However the people didn't adhere to Washington's plans at all. And the southern states ignored the treaty. And the northern tribes went on the defensive so as not to suffer the same insult(starting the Northwest Indian War).

But Washington was anything but an Indian "genocide" activist. Get your damn facts straight before you spew such tripe and try and vaguely compare him to 20th century monsters like hitler and Stalin. Washington was a very pro Indian activist and his record as president shows that. Do some homework.

Well you should read what I wrote first of all,


Look the United States of America was built on slavery and genocide of Native Americans and as AC3 showed, George Washington ordered the forced removal and destruction of several villages. Yet we don't think of the Founding Father as war criminals or compare them to 20th Century monsters

I specified Founding Fathers (and that includes that entire generation and committees and governments) as hypothetical "war criminals" and not Washington alone. I mentioned George Washington because of AC3(and this is an AC board) and his Sullivan Expedition which, yes the Iroquois were supporting the English, but involved the destruction of their infrastructure, burning their crops and displacing them from their homes by force which in today's context would be considered as a war crime, there was no separation of civilian and combatants in that expedition and forty villages were systematically destroyed.

My point in bringing up these incidents and that of the British Empire also was simply ask the question why the Reign of Terror equated to the Holocaust and Stalin's crimes(even if the numbers are painfully few by comparison, the methods and system has absolutely zero in common) instead of seeing, just like the American Revolution and presumably, England's campaigns in Ireland as contingencies of war and civil defense.

DumbGamerTag94
10-23-2014, 07:31 AM
As for Robespierre.

You may want to do a bit more research on him too.

I find it hilarious when people so vehemently defend Robespirre and refuse to accept any evidence contrary to their already cemented opinions.

It's funny you should point out only specific authors and refuse to accept others. Because it's a fairly easily proven fact that the Vast majority of Robespierre's historian defenders over the last 200 years have been radical Leftists. Some even being Communists etc. In fact one of the more prominently cited "Robespierre is good" scholars is a man who basically pioneered the "Marxist view" of the French Revolution. This view is commonly characterized by praising of the goods of the reign of terror and holding up Robespierre as a beacon of all that is good(sounds very much like those authors you have been reading are of this school. Or at least cited other writers of this school unintendedly).

In fact the majority of scholars condemn Robespierre on multiple counts. Even those who are fairly objective and moderate with their writings focus a great deal on his evils as well as his accomplishments.

And as there are writers that overly praise him. There are unfair writers who demonize him as well. Mainly on the right. Conservative historians. Which I do not advocate either.

Robespierre is just very controversial to this day even among historians for the simple fact that he was so Radical. He was so far to the Left politically that it is hard to get any level of objectivism. As most moderates can not agree with the lengths he went to, folks in the Right despise everything he is. And those on the left adore him and wish to defend him(so much so they made a club "the Robespierre society). He's so polarizing because he's so radical. It's all a matter of perspective. And your view of him will automatically be tainted by your preexisting political leanings/and/or the leanings of the author that provides you the info. There is no such thing as true objectivity in anything but scientific fact.

What I will say is this. Your views of Robespierre and how "good" he was is heavily biased. You can not trust the word of an author or two just because they are "experts". Everyone has an opinion and an agenda including historians and authors however little they wish to admit it. Always look in to where your info is coming from. Do not simply accept one thing as fact becaus it's what you've read and anything else from then on has to be in agreement for it to be true. That's a terrible mindset and irresponsible historical stewardship.

Just trace your author's history a little. If they fall into the Marxist/Socialist school or they are members of the "Robespirre Society". Then I can guarentee you that you are not getting the entire story and everything is being spun unfairly tward the positive. And vise versa if the author is conservative.

Always check your sources and if a fair middle ground cannot be found(in robespirres case this is probably true) then you may have to read one book heavily defending him and another destroying him and only accept what the two books hold in common as fact. And draw your own conclusion. Do not just accept the viewpoint given to you by a book. Any crazy person can write a book.

From all of the readings I have done and research I have found that the truth of the matter is much more in the middle.

Robespirre was a good intentioned man that did a great deal of good things. But also used political scheming/de facto coups/betrayal of former allies to achieve his goals. And as head of the Jacobin Party(which was in control of the committee of public safty and the National Assembly. So even if you blame the terror on one of those body's as the party head Robespierre is therefore ultimately responsible for anything that those body's decide to do directly or indirectly) initiated and escalated(even after it reached the point of public and Internal jacobin outcry against it) the reign of terror.

He was a very intelligent and noble man who intended the best for his country. But in persuit of his ideals he stooped to some very serious dark places.

He is both good and bad. You cannot have the good Robespierre did without accepting the reasons those things got done. You must take the good with the bad. He like any other historical figure was not perfect.

Just because he was Persuing a good thing doesn't mean it excuses the evils he committed. Of course you can justify it. Otherwise he never would have done it. He did those things with the same rationale you're defending them with. But does that make them any less evil when you step back and don't look at it from his perspective? No. They are still aweful terrible things. He was a good man but was blind to how evil it was because he simply didn't see it that way.

Anyway. Just because something can be justified didn't mean it's right. Someone had to have justified every action in history otherwise they wouldn't have happened. But does that mean that the holocaust or slavery were good things? No!

It's all perspective oriented. There is no fair objective anything. Always try to balance this by doing through research and observing from all possible perspectives. Taking the common ground from all perspectives is the only real way to seperate facts from opinions. And the only way to do that is for yourself. One or two authors cannot be trusted to do that for you.

DumbGamerTag94
10-23-2014, 08:01 AM
I specified Founding Fathers (and that includes that entire generation and committees and governments) as hypothetical "war criminals" and not Washington alone. I mentioned George Washington because of AC3(and this is an AC board) and his Sullivan Expedition which, yes the Iroquois were supporting the English, but involved the destruction of their infrastructure, burning their crops and displacing them from their homes by force which in today's context would be considered as a war crime, there was no separation of civilian and combatants in that expedition and forty villages were systematically destroyed.

Even so if that is what you meant that is also a disgusting oversimplification and erroneous stement. There were many founding fathers that proposed ending things like slavery. And who share views on the natives with Washington. However political realities prevented several of these things from happening(one of the down sides of democracy unfortunately). But many states in the north for example outlawed slavery during or immediatly following the revolution. With only the southern states still allowing slavery by the time the 1800s came around.

And as for the Sullivan expedition. That entire thing was in response to an earlier offensive by the natives and their British advisers that resulted in many American settlements in central PA and western New York being treated in much the same way as those native villages. There was no distinction by the naives or Brits as to civilians or not. Hole towns were put to the torch and entire forts(including cowering civilians women and children inside) were massacred in several places in the western front of the Revolutionary War by the British and Natives. So the Sullivan expedition was sent out. And the scorched earth policy was a necessity for both revenge purposes. And to reduce the diversion of manpower from the more important eastern front. It was a military necessity. To protect the patriots western front.

The Continental Congress did not even desire conflict with the natives. In fact they released statements to the different tribes asking them to please stay out of the war. That they desired no conflict with them. The British were the ones who talked them into fighting. They promised them all kinds of things like protecting their land. Money weapons etc(the latter easily given the former more likely a lie for the wars sake). It was the British and natives that went on the brutal offensive first. So then by your standard they should be war criminals too.

Don't defend things you don't fully understand. There's more than one side to every story. The natives were not just innocent bystanders in that war by any means. Both sides were equally wrong in those campaigns. But that doesn't make either side inherently "wrong" or "evil".

VestigialLlama4
10-23-2014, 08:57 AM
I am responding to both your earlier posts.

Just trace your author's history a little. If they fall into the Marxist/Socialist school or they are members of the "Robespirre Society". Then I can guarentee you that you are not getting the entire story and everything is being spun unfairly tward the positive. And vise versa if the author is conservative.

The Books I cited, one was Robespierre edited by Colin Haydon and William Doyle, neither of whom are Marxists or radical leftists. They feature essays from several different writers with highly different viewpoints, some critical, some sympathetic, some such as Norman Hampson are both. The final essay, Francois Crouzet is the most anti-Robespierre article in the book, but neither writer looks at Robespierre as a dictator or proto-fascist, or invoke comparisons to Stalin and Hitler (which is what I was arguing against when people started harping the whole Robespierre is a dictator), which is the overwhelming perspective of most popular portrayals. The other is Robert Roswell Palmer, an American historian, who is also not a Marxist or super-leftist, probably a Liberal (Robespierre is occassionally compared to Lincoln), his book ''The 12 Who Ruled'' is the best book on the Committee of Public Safety and what the Terror actually was, and is regarded as the best book on the French Revolution by an American author. It is also cited highly by Hannah Arendt, the great political philosopher who argued that Communism was one of "two totalitarian" philosophies, for her book ''On Revolution'' which looks at the mixed legacies of the French and American Revolution, and is critical of the French in favor of America but also looks at the Terror objectively.

I didn't mention the author's backgrounds because I had the naive understanding that people would actually look up the books, consider the argument before casting aspersions on the author's background for his political sympathies. You know that attitude is actually, heh heh...quite similar to the Terror, background checks, consistency of political sympathies and all that. Of course there's no guillotine at the end of the interrogation these days.



The Continental Congress did not even desire conflict with the natives. In fact they released statements to the different tribes asking them to please stay out of the war. That they desired no conflict with them. The British were the ones who talked them into fighting. They promised them all kinds of things like protecting their land. Money weapons etc(the latter easily given the former more likely a lie for the wars sake). It was the British and natives that went on the brutal offensive first. So then by your standard they should be war criminals too.


I am not contesting this. As you point out that there are circumstances and expediencies which made Washington behave in a certain way and why the Congress behave the way they did. This I am not denying at all. My point is why is it that people are so much more willing to consider circumstances and expediencies on behalf of Washington than for the Revolution and the Terror. That was the nature of the argument I made in contesting against the earlier poster who argued that Robespierre was a dictator and cited a fraud documentary-recreation by Simon Schama full of error and bias. I only pointed out the fallacy of applying 20th Century experiences to 18th Century Foundational Eras, where again, those same standards would find, and often do find on behalf of several leftists (such as Howard Zinn or Gore Vidal), unflattering. The fact is America profited from genocide and slavery and the Founding Fathers, via their recalcitrance, their timidity, their indifference, and in some cases full compliance, enabled that and do have to take their fair share of the collective blame for that. Does that mean that its of the same order as the Nazi genocide or Stalinist repression, absolutely not! The same applies to the Reign of Terror, which deserves the same courtesy of curiosity.

Locopells
10-23-2014, 11:13 AM
OK, everybody calm down - and Radman, stop provoking people.

RinoTheBouncer
10-23-2014, 12:39 PM
Every story has two sides. Every enemy is a friend of somebody.

Not taking sides here, I’m just clarifying that what you might perceive is total evil could be total good to somebody else. For example Hitler is a criminal i the west but he’s a hero in the Middle East, why? because Hitler was against Jews and Jews have forced Palestinians out of their lands with the excuse that “God promised us this land”, so that makes Jews the enemy of Palestinians, and you know that the enemy of my enemy is often my friend.

I’m not here to debate whether Palestine is for the Jews or the Arabs, nor wether Hitler is a war criminal or not, or whether Saddam Hussein was a tyrant or not, just showing that you can’t unite the whole world against one enemy because there are always two sides for the story and two sides in a war.

VestigialLlama4
10-23-2014, 01:13 PM
Every story has two sides. Every enemy is a friend of somebody.

Not taking sides here, I’m just clarifying that what you might perceive is total evil could be total good to somebody else. For example Hitler is a criminal i the west but he’s a hero in the Middle East, why? because Hitler was against Jews and Jews have forced Palestinians out of their lands with the excuse that “God promised us this land”, so that makes Jews the enemy of Palestinians, and you know that the enemy of my enemy is often my friend.

Hitler is not a hero in the Middle East.While a few fringe Palestinian elements and others might have flirted with that kind of anti-semitism, they are fringe and not at all representative. The same kind exists in the west. People in the Middle East dislike dictatorship and Hitler had a big influence on that, and he's a favorite to ''them'' and some crazy politicians from India's Hindu Right Wing for that matter.

In any case, this kind of relativist idea is itself a form of black-and-white thinking. There aren't just two sides, there are many sides. It's imagining that one can be relative only in extremes. Like because I was hoping that AC:UNITY, on the basis of the works of some professional historians as cited in interviews, would not saddle itself with the persecuted-aristocrats meme from Scarlet Pimpernel I am somehow transformed into a Robespierre apologist merely for citing a few well known facts about his political career that are consistently ignored in any media representation simply because the conventional idea of Robespierre-as-Tyrant remains more entertaining to people and by putting him in a wider context of civil defense and wartime expediency, basic armchair historian stuff. It doesn't follow from that I think that one can legitimately make a rational political argument for Hitler or Stalin.

RinoTheBouncer
10-23-2014, 01:26 PM
Hitler is not a hero in the Middle East.While a few fringe Palestinian elements and others might have flirted with that kind of anti-semitism, they are fringe and not at all representative. The same kind exists in the west. People in the Middle East dislike dictatorship and Hitler had a big influence on that, and he's a favorite to ''them'' and some crazy politicians from India's Hindu Right Wing for that matter.

In any case, this kind of relativist idea is itself a form of black-and-white thinking. There aren't just two sides, there are many sides. It's imagining that one can be relative only in extremes. Like because I was hoping that AC:UNITY, on the basis of the works of some professional historians as cited in interviews, would not saddle itself with the persecuted-aristocrats meme from Scarlet Pimpernel I am somehow transformed into a Robespierre apologist merely for citing a few well known facts about his political career that are consistently ignored in any media representation simply because the conventional idea of Robespierre-as-Tyrant remains more entertaining to people and by putting him in a wider context of civil defense and wartime expediency, basic armchair historian stuff. It doesn't follow from that I think that one can legitimately make a rational political argument for Hitler or Stalin.

Well I’m from Iraq and I live in Jordan and I can confirm to you that though people do hate dictatorships in the Middle East and they’re fighting it with all their might, when you say Hitler there it’s never the same as saying Hitler in the US or UK or France or Germany..etc. And I’m in no way implying that us, Arabs support killing. No we despise terrorism even though the face of terrorism is now linked to beards, arabs and muslims, it is not true, but I was just giving a general idea that not every enemy can be viewed as an enemy of everybody.

I personally haven’t read very much about Robespierre, so I can’t really argue about that matter, but just giving a general statement about how some people are quick to judge someone who sympathizes with a certain figure. For example, Saddam Hussein was a dictator, tyrant, he ruled with an iron fist and he was indeed involved with so much pain and murder. However, when you compare Saddam Hussein’s reign with Iraq today, you’d wish you can go back to Saddam Hussein’s times, at least during Saddam’s reign, people could go out till 3:00 AM and not worry about being attacked or robbed or kidnapped in the streets, or being bombed all of a sudden or being killed by a certain militia just because you’re Sunni Muslim not Shiite Muslim, or the other way.

On the other hand, we weren’t really the happiest people during Saddam’s time as there were other negatives parts, so yeah, it’s a very complex matter and it’ll always be.

LatinaC09
10-23-2014, 01:54 PM
I don't think anyone's necessarily defending Robespierre. He was a radical man with radical ideas but I would never blindly say that Robespierre was wrong and the people were right regarding the French Revolution. That revolution was chaos with wrong doing on all sides and fronts. It's never black and white. History is often written from the viewpoint of the victors. I think we need to keep that in mind.

RinoTheBouncer
10-23-2014, 01:56 PM
I don't think anyone's necessarily defending Robespierre. He was a radical man with radical ideas but I would never blindly say that Robespierre was wrong and the people were right regarding the French Revolution. That revolution was chaos with wrong doing on all sides and fronts. It's never black and white. History is often written from the viewpoint of the victors. I think we need to keep that in mind.

I agree 100%

VestigialLlama4
10-23-2014, 06:39 PM
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-10/23/assassins-creed-unity-interview-maxime-durand

Another interview on use of history by Maxime Durand:


In the single player story, the history is a backdrop. We're not spoonfeeding people, but they are seeing real people from the French Revolution like Gabriel Riqueti , the comte de Mirabeau. He was seen as the father of the revolution but at the end it was proven he was talking to the king and queen in secret. He was actually a spy, so his body was removed from the Pantheon where he'd been buried as a hero. That's the kind of event or revelation that's useful for us when creating the game.

More interesting is the problems of using certain protagonists in terms of historical context


For Aveline in Liberation having to switch identities, it was relevant for the fantasy of the time period. She can't be a "superhero" and has to sneak around as an assassin. Then you have Ezio, who has a lot more freedom as a nobleman, and Altair who has absolutely no freedom. It's the same for Connor ; he's involved in a fight but he has no power really. Even though he tried the best he could, he just ended up failing.