King Washington the Wicked

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

King Washington the Wicked

Assassin's Creed III's fiction isn't so far off from historical fact.

Read Full Article

I didn't know before how tumultuous the founding fathers' relationships were. Interesting that America's incredible paranoia about autocracy and federal power is as old as the country itself. Especially since the revolution was as much about maintaining power as it was about overthrowing it.

He may not have openly wanted to take power for himself, but in that quote he did refer to America as "my" country.

I've never really looked into the American War for Independence. Britain's been involved in so many over the course of our history I couldn't nearly keep track. Very interesting article.

Times like this help remind everyone why America has a thing for the world wars: they are some of the few times in American history where everyone in the country was the on the same page (+/- 5% of course).

1781-1812 Pro-French vs Pro-Federalist
1812-1861 Pro Slave vs Pro Free
1866-1899 Pro Punish vs Pro Absolve (the rebuilding of the South)
It abated for a time, then the World Wars then
1950-1975 Pro War vs Pro Peace (Korea and Vietnam)
1976-Present Pro Liberal vs Pro Conservative

Honestly, our country has never really gotten along.

This does sound kind of interesting
but I don't think it is enough to make me buy the game just for that

Excellent article.

As a history enthusiast and as a teacher of American History, I greatly approve.

A great article. I'm really enjoying this Critical Intel feature, and I hope the Escapist keeps it up.

As a non american I really enjoyed this. If the standard keeps up Critical intel will quickly become one of my favourite features one the Escapist.

Carsus Tyrell:
I've never really looked into the American War for Independence. Britain's been involved in so many over the course of our history I couldn't nearly keep track. Very interesting article.

Its an article very much from the American point of view. For instance its does not mention Washingtons service during the 7 years war which started with the bayoneting of 21 sleeping French soldiers by troops under his command. The article also does not mention that fact the siege of Yorktown was only made possible by the blockade by the French navy and by French manned siege guns. The fact that the French also paid for the continental army and the sheer cost of the war was one of the causes of the French Revolution is also missed. Sort of like not mention the cold war in the context of Vietnam. The article also does not explore the motivations and politics of the British commander Cornwallis. Cornwallis was sympathetic to the colonists demands and chose not to follow up several victories in favor of trying to find a political settlement but he miscalculated and ended up being trapped by French invention.

Being successful requires a certain amount of luck. Washington was in the right place at the right time and screwed up less than his opponents is reasonable summation of his career.

A quite interesting read, especially since I never heard much about Americas history in such detail. I didn't have the slightest idea how vilified he was at times by the press.

Personally, I am looking forward to Washington as a moustache-twirling villain. He got that certain charm, coupled with a strong personality and ambitional goals which would make him a terrific opponent.

Alandoril:
He may not have openly wanted to take power for himself, but in that quote he did refer to America as "my" country.

Eh, that doesn't mean anything. I refer to the UK as "my country" but that doesn't mean I think I own it, in the same way that people refer to "my school", "my town" etc though they don't own the school or town in question.

OT: Great read, hope to see more like this in future

grey_space:
As a non american I really enjoyed this. If the standard keeps up Critical intel will quickly become one of my favourite features one the Escapist.

I already love it. Even in the last critical intel when bringing up the stereotypes often used in mexico the article intelligently offered solutions and avoided that common pitfall that bickering over stereotypes often leads too(ie: this is bad and im offended,you should be offended to, do something)

:D Good article!
I have to admit, the part about the glasses got to me.

I hope the dlc is good. Reading all this makes it sound like George Washington was the least likely person to do this. I wonder how they will explain that, or if they'll just ignore it?
Hope they don't just ignore it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the concept of this DLC made me buy the Season Pass. I do not regret it.

albino boo:

Its an article very much from the American point of view. For instance its does not mention Washingtons service during the 7 years war which started with the bayoneting of 21 sleeping French soldiers by troops under his command. The article also does not mention that fact the siege of Yorktown was only made possible by the blockade by the French navy and by French manned siege guns. The fact that the French also paid for the continental army and the sheer cost of the war was one of the causes of the French Revolution is also missed. Sort of like not mention the cold war in the context of Vietnam. The article also does not explore the motivations and politics of the British commander Cornwallis. Cornwallis was sympathetic to the colonists demands and chose not to follow up several victories in favor of trying to find a political settlement but he miscalculated and ended up being trapped by French invention.

Being successful requires a certain amount of luck. Washington was in the right place at the right time and screwed up less than his opponents is reasonable summation of his career.

Very valid point, in regards to the comment you were replying to, but the article isn't about national involvement. The French did indeed play a role that very much Decided the war because of it's support, but the article isn't about that. It's about the person Washington and about early American politics. It's showing the American perspective of Washington and the early government because it's an American affair. France had a great deal to do with our founding by supporting us financially and as allies, but they had no hand in our internal development and infighting.

albino boo:
snip

None of these things were mentioned because they weren't relevant. The article was about Washington as a person; specifically, how he handled his power.

Imp Emissary:
:D Good article!
I have to admit, the part about the glasses got to me.

I hope the dlc is good. Reading all this makes it sound like George Washington was the least likely person to do this. I wonder how they will explain that, or if they'll just ignore it?
Hope they don't just ignore it.

alternate history with an alternate George Washington, who fought King George III to name himself King George I.

Very good article. I know a lot about American history, but reading about the finer details is always enjoyable. I've been really liking this feature. Looking forward to the next one.

Awesome write up!

For further dlc, they should take other funny liberties with history.

Krat Arona:

Very valid point, in regards to the comment you were replying to, but the article isn't about national involvement. The French did indeed play a role that very much Decided the war because of it's support, but the article isn't about that. It's about the person Washington and about early American politics. It's showing the American perspective of Washington and the early government because it's an American affair. France had a great deal to do with our founding by supporting us financially and as allies, but they had no hand in our internal development and infighting.

Storm Dragon:

albino boo:
snip

None of these things were mentioned because they weren't relevant. The article was about Washington as a person; specifically, how he handled his power.

Storm Dragon:

None of these things were mentioned because they weren't relevant. The article was about Washington as a person; specifically, how he handled his power.

The point I'm making it wasn't his power, the power the he wielded was only existed because of the much wider political situation. You can't have a discussion of about the about Ho Chi Minh and the balance of power inside the North Vietnamese communist party without mentioning the wider context of the cold war and the split between China and Russia. Neither can you write a history of modern Israel without mentioning the role of the US. US domestic politics today rests in vacuum sealed off from the rest of world, this was not always the case. At the time the US only existed by under the protection of a world power and this limited the options available to anyone in power at the time. France was perfectly capable of doing what the US did to Britain, France and Israel during the Suez crisis.

During the war of 1812 only reason was the British did not hit the US with all the force that it could after 1814 was concern over Russian intervention. In the case of lesser powers you cannot compartmentalize between domestic and foreign.

Am now even more amped for this game. Sadly, I play PC so I have to wait just under a month for it.

The AC series, beginning to run out of time period where assassins stabbing and sword-fighting would make any sense probably went in a very clever direction - alternate history can work just as well. I mean, they've already got secret societies bouncing all over the place.

You hear that storm coming?

It's the right wing portion of the media who get's one look at the premise of this and immediately start a Mass Effect style hellraising on Fox News and talk radio.

Brace yourselves. This one is gonna get stupid...

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Times like this help remind everyone why America has a thing for the world wars: they are some of the few times in American history where everyone in the country was the on the same page (+/- 5% of course).

1781-1812 Pro-French vs Pro-Federalist
1812-1861 Pro Slave vs Pro Free
1866-1899 Pro Punish vs Pro Absolve (the rebuilding of the South)
It abated for a time, then the World Wars then
1950-1975 Pro War vs Pro Peace (Korea and Vietnam)
1976-Present Pro Liberal vs Pro Conservative

Honestly, our country has never really gotten along.

I assume you've heard of the phrase, "divide and conquer", correct?

besides, people love dualities, it makes it way easier to imagine your political opponents as the unquestionable "bad side" when there are no other factions/parties involved.

GunsmithKitten:
You hear that storm coming?

It's the right wing portion of the media who get's one look at the premise of this and immediately start a Mass Effect style hellraising on Fox News and talk radio.

Brace yourselves. This one is gonna get stupid...

awww yeah!
who's got popcorn?

Sounds interesting, I'll have to keep an eye out for it. I love alternate takes on history... though this one might not be too far from the truth...

Combustion Kevin:

NameIsRobertPaulson:
Times like this help remind everyone why America has a thing for the world wars: they are some of the few times in American history where everyone in the country was the on the same page (+/- 5% of course).

1781-1812 Pro-French vs Pro-Federalist
1812-1861 Pro Slave vs Pro Free
1866-1899 Pro Punish vs Pro Absolve (the rebuilding of the South)
It abated for a time, then the World Wars then
1950-1975 Pro War vs Pro Peace (Korea and Vietnam)
1976-Present Pro Liberal vs Pro Conservative

Honestly, our country has never really gotten along.

I assume you've heard of the phrase, "divide and conquer", correct?

besides, people love dualities, it makes it way easier to imagine your political opponents as the unquestionable "bad side" when there are no other factions/parties involved.

Ya' see, this kind of thing is part of the reason why I dislike politics....

Combustion Kevin:

GunsmithKitten:
You hear that storm coming?

It's the right wing portion of the media who get's one look at the premise of this and immediately start a Mass Effect style hellraising on Fox News and talk radio.

Brace yourselves. This one is gonna get stupid...

awww yeah!
who's got popcorn?

I'll get the sodas! Any preferences?

This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

Revnak:
This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

Don't forget, this is only DLC. Ubisoft have already made it clear throughout the promotional campaign that Washington is a main character, a good guy, and at least allied with the Assassins in the main game, if not one himself. He supports Connor through the game. This has been said multiple times. The DLC is specifically designed as an 'alternate history' story, and judging by the effort Ubisoft have gone to in the past to match the multiplayer parts of the games and all the DLC to the main ongoing story, it makes sense that they'll have a valid explanation in-game for the DLC campaign. It will be clear which side Washington is on, don't you worry about that :D.

That's also one of the reasons why I still like Ubisoft, by the way. Their DLC may be stupid and their business practices questionable, but damn if they don't make a great game (I even liked Revelations, believe it or not), and keep an amazing story well-told within them :D.

Back to the main topic, as well, I found this to be really interesting. It was cool learning more about American history, particularly about such a cool guy as George Washington, despite the fact that I'm as British as Doctor Who and the 2012 Olympics :P. However, I have a serious question, and I want people to answer truthfully.

Was I the only person who read most of that article in the voice of Shaun Hastings, the historian from the AC games?

Revnak:
This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.


I seriously don't know how people are always up in arms over what Assassin's Creed portrays in terms of history and historical figures....maybe people just aren't completing all the parts of the game or something. I mean honestly Assassin's Creed has pretty much written every major world event/innovation as a part of the Templar/Assassin war.

Rednog:

Revnak:
This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

The_Blue_Rider:

Rednog:

Revnak:
This is all actually why I have some issues with the premise of ACIII. Instead of going after some historical villain, they're going after a historical saint. Somebody who everyone knows was actually a very decent guy. I just worry this will be accomplished without any real effort being made to be somewhat believable. In the end, Washington was no Templar, and somehow this game has to explain that. I suppose having him be corrupted by the federalists and the apple and then abandoning the both of them in the end may be an adequate way to explain it all though, but that means you have to paint the federalists as villains, specifically Hamilton, you know, the guy who actually opposed slavery. I just don't get how this could easily fit into the very clear cut world of Assassin's Creed, with mustache twirling Templars and anti-heroic assassins.

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

I don't know about that, considering the apple has pretty much only been shown to be a mass mind control device. And I think one would have a hard time arguing that anyone using the pieces of eden to control people is doing it for the sunshine and rainbows.

Rednog:

The_Blue_Rider:

Rednog:

...Wait, what?
You know that if you do all the glyph stuff and the puzzles you find that Assasin's Creed paints most of history's big names as villains, right?
Hell even peaceful guys like Gandhi are painted as bad guys.

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

I don't know about that, considering the apple has pretty much only been shown to be a mass mind control device. And I think one would have a hard time arguing that anyone using the pieces of eden to control people is doing it for the sunshine and rainbows.

Well I guess I did pick the two that were easiest to defend. Houdini's really just looked like he wanted to be the greatest magician/escape artist, and was using the Apple as part of the illusion. Ghandi on the other hand, I can only assume thought he was doing the right thing by using the apple, the end justifying the means.....

Ok nevermind Ghandi sounds exactly like a Templar, still no real evidence that Houdini was a bad guy

Washington was a royalist like Obama is a socialist? Yeah...not quite. If you've spent your entire life hanging out with communists and your long-time mentor and close personal friend (Frank Marshal Davis) is considered so dangerous that he has an FBI dossier a mile long and had a shooting war started with the Soviet Union, he would have been summarily locked up as an enemy of the state, to say nothing of telling people that they're not responsible for their own success but the government because the government provided your business with roads (which is funny, because I do believe there were businesses created before there were paved roads), then I think we 'might' just be heading into socialist territory... I'm just saying. I eagerly await the calls of racism.

The_Blue_Rider:

Rednog:

The_Blue_Rider:

I think those were just examples of people unwittingly stumbling onto a Piece of Eden and using its power in whichever way they see fit. Ghandi used his to try bring peace, Houdini used his to enhance his escape artistry. Doesnt really make them bad guys

I don't know about that, considering the apple has pretty much only been shown to be a mass mind control device. And I think one would have a hard time arguing that anyone using the pieces of eden to control people is doing it for the sunshine and rainbows.

Well I guess I did pick the two that were easiest to defend. Houdini's really just looked like he wanted to be the greatest magician/escape artist, and was using the Apple as part of the illusion. Ghandi on the other hand, I can only assume thought he was doing the right thing by using the apple, the end justifying the means.....

Ok nevermind Ghandi sounds exactly like a Templar, still no real evidence that Houdini was a bad guy

According to the Assassin's Creed wiki Houdini was murdered by the Templar for the apple, so yea I guess the apple has fallen into the hands of some randoms, but I still think a good chunk of historical figures who used the pieces are meant to be viewed negatively.

Edit: Apparently there are several apples, so I don't know what conclusion to come to.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here