The Assassins and Templars are Idiots

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I was actually glad that they chose a setting where the line between good and bad was blurred. I get pretty tired of bad guys who are Darth Vader evil. Not even that, because Darth Vader turned good in the end. More like Andross evil, just being complete dicks all the time about everything and instead of telling you how they were just trying to help when they die they're all "YOU'LL NEVER DEFEAT ANDROOOOSSSSSSSS!" I enjoy moral gray areas. Makes for deeper thoughts.

The plot still fell flat, though. They should have fleshed out Connor's confusion over the colonials vs. the British way more. I would have liked him to totally say fuck it to the patriots in the end instead of just whining at them. I mean, George Washington is partially responsible for the death of Connor's best friend. He should have tried to kill George Washington too, and of course failed (for the sake of historical accuracy), and then that would explain why your supposed best buds the Patriots try to kill you all the time after the British are gone. That would have been a WAY better epilogue than Connor seeing some black people being sold into slavery and shaking his head with a little smile like "Oh, you silly whiteys, claiming to love freedom while slaving at the same time." Fuck that, he should have been "fuck all you whiteys!" and actually made effort to drive them away and protect his people.

I do massively agree that the American Revolution is BORING. You can't even imagine how boring it is to American kids who have to learn about it 13 years in a row in school. I mean, battles, ok sure dodging cannon fire is pretty fun. But the Declaration of Independence? So boring. Oh yay, you made up a piece of paper whining about how you don't have to listen to the British anymore, and one guy signed it really big. Can I please KILL SOMEONE? French Revolution would have been awesome, and wouldn't have made me feel all that white guilt. Sorry, Native Americans.

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone's minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don't think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like "uh, well, maybe let people make decisions." The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I'm worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I had concerns when the American Revolution was announced as AC3's setting. And my biggest was the American Revolution was one of the cleanest wars in history: a few isolated incidents and pseudo-historical crap like The Patriot notwithstanding. How the hell do you have a game about running around stabbing dudes in the face during a war that had less of that than almost any other war in history?

beastro:
The whole reason why I as a Canadian love US history is that it's actually interesting. Ours beyond our part in the Second Hundred Years' War, the War of Independence, War of 1812 and our military involved in the Empire during and after the Second Boer War (All being only footnotes in Canadian curriculum) is a yawn fest about the fur trade, Indians, French-Canadians and Metis.

It only seems that way because a) there's this prevailing History Channel notion that wars are the only exciting parts of history and b) the official history curriculum in most Canadian schools is shit. 19th century Canadian history is full of rebellions, riots, political scandals, and at least one high profile assassination. It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.) Also, they don't seem to want to teach about those incidents of popular protest or martial law, but instead preach our national mythology of tolerance, compromise, and order without accounting for all the bruised knuckles and bloody noses it took to reach those compromises.

There are a few problems with that though.

1. The assassins and templars are so evenly matched that a third organization would be kind of redundant.

2. the pieces of eden already grant balance-shifting levels of power

3. The Assassin have highly resourceful killers on their side. The Templars have killers and resourceful people on their side. If a third organization has been keeping the balance and ultimately preventing one side from winning, they would've more than likely been killed within a century or less.

CaspianRoach:
So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha.

Ironicly, in the Civil war era, the Democrats were the party supporting slavery and the Republicans were the ones supporting abolishment.

Falseprophet:
I had concerns when the American Revolution was announced as AC3's setting. And my biggest was the American Revolution was one of the cleanest wars in history: a few isolated incidents and pseudo-historical crap like The Patriot notwithstanding. How the hell do you have a game about running around stabbing dudes in the face during a war that had less of that than almost any other war in history?

beastro:
The whole reason why I as a Canadian love US history is that it's actually interesting. Ours beyond our part in the Second Hundred Years' War, the War of Independence, War of 1812 and our military involved in the Empire during and after the Second Boer War (All being only footnotes in Canadian curriculum) is a yawn fest about the fur trade, Indians, French-Canadians and Metis.

It only seems that way because a) there's this prevailing History Channel notion that wars are the only exciting parts of history and b) the official history curriculum in most Canadian schools is shit. 19th century Canadian history is full of rebellions, riots, political scandals, and at least one high profile assassination. It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.) Also, they don't seem to want to teach about those incidents of popular protest or martial law, but instead preach our national mythology of tolerance, compromise, and order without accounting for all the bruised knuckles and bloody noses it took to reach those compromises.

In your province perhaps.

I got to learn about the Interment camps, Residential schools, using HBC blankets to spread disease, the FLQ, and oh yes, Louis Real.

Falseprophet:

It only seems that way because a) there's this prevailing History Channel notion that wars are the only exciting parts of history and b) the official history curriculum in most Canadian schools is shit. 19th century Canadian history is full of rebellions, riots, political scandals, and at least one high profile assassination. It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.) Also, they don't seem to want to teach about those incidents of popular protest or martial law, but instead preach our national mythology of tolerance, compromise, and order without accounting for all the bruised knuckles and bloody noses it took to reach those compromises.

A men brother! I have a deep passion for history, and I really want to teach it someday, but not in a high school. The curriculum is beyond terrible. It is more political indoctrination than any meaningful attempt to teach history.

Ahem. Speaking as a Canadian military history major, I agree that the American Revolution certainly wasn't the most interesting place to set another Assassin's Creed. However, that is simply down to personal preference. My American history professor is so utterly fascinated by 19th century American social history that she devoted her life to it, but just thinking about it almost puts me to sleep.

I have devoted my life to studying various military conflicts, particularly the Second World War, and even more specifically the war against Japan. Yet I fully understand that many people out there have absolutely no interest in that.

Sonofadiddly:

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone's minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don't think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like "uh, well, maybe let people make decisions." The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I'm worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I agree with most everything in your post, except one. I think you might have the wrong idea about anarchy. Anarchy is actually a style of rule (sort of). It isn't about chaos and fire and death like people seem to think. Anarchy is actually implies a system of government that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. This is not ruled by a central government, but more by a system of individual governance, kind of like if states had all the power in the US and we did away with central government.

"I feel as an international company, Ubisoft should have realized that no-one besides Americans cares about American history"

Honestly most american students want to get the hell away from all of that. They teach us the same boring crap for about 8 years in a row. It is not interesting in the SLIGHTEST way.

Which is why i don't understand why this AC game is doing well at all. To me the best part of AC games that you can always appreciate through-out the game is the interesting historical time period.

This game does not have that. Actually it has the exact opposite, i would put money down that there isn't a less interesting time period they could have chosen.

Redem:
Heh while I agree the "secret war" in assassin creed is really poorly written especially when it tries to tell us stuff off screen(for exemple how they pretty much have templar motivation change in every game) this article seem to boil down to trying to tell us "The american revolutionnary war sucks as a setting" .

The Templar's goals change because they change with the times, with the whole "domination" thing being a constant. They just change their methods.

The war as a lot of inconsistencies, that's not one of them.

*reads thread*

Wait, am I in the right place? This is the escapist, right? So where did all these intelligent posters appear from?!

On topic, French Revolution would be awesome, except... don't most Americans (the primary market) still hate the French because TV told them to?

barbzilla:

Sonofadiddly:

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone's minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don't think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like "uh, well, maybe let people make decisions." The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I'm worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I agree with most everything in your post, except one. I think you might have the wrong idea about anarchy. Anarchy is actually a style of rule (sort of). It isn't about chaos and fire and death like people seem to think. Anarchy is actually implies a system of government that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. This is not ruled by a central government, but more by a system of individual governance, kind of like if states had all the power in the US and we did away with central government.

Yeah I was asking for that. Sorry, I know that not all anarchists go to peaceful protests just to try and make it go awry so they can smash windows. I still disagree with the actual basic principles of anarchism. I don't think we as a society are smart or reasonable enough to get rid of central government.

Sonofadiddly:

barbzilla:

Sonofadiddly:

As for the Templars vs. Assassins, I got the sense that Assassins have been trying to stop the Templars from controlling everyone's minds with the apples like the precursors did, completely taking away their free will. I don't think the Assassins are straight up anarchists (I hope not, because anarchists are stupid assholes), just some people who are like "uh, well, maybe let people make decisions." The way the plot seems to be going now, though, I'm worried that this is going to end in Templars and Assassins joining hands and skipping merrily through the streets in eternal friendship. Gagging noise.

I agree with most everything in your post, except one. I think you might have the wrong idea about anarchy. Anarchy is actually a style of rule (sort of). It isn't about chaos and fire and death like people seem to think. Anarchy is actually implies a system of government that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society. This is not ruled by a central government, but more by a system of individual governance, kind of like if states had all the power in the US and we did away with central government.

Yeah I was asking for that. Sorry, I know that not all anarchists go to peaceful protests just to try and make it go awry so they can smash windows. I still disagree with the actual basic principles of anarchism. I don't think we as a society are smart or reasonable enough to get rid of central government.

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

barbzilla:

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

Like I said, we're all too stupid for that shit. Wink face to make sure you know I'm trying to be clever.

Or it ended when, you know, one side was surrounded and defeated by the armies of two countries? Also, I could make the argument that when the french revolution happened it only affected the people of Europe, not the whole world.

David Chadwell:
First off:

@CaspianRoach:"So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha." As presented in the article, Assassins are the no-governance and that has always been the conservative (as in less government) line. People who want a liberal amount of government would be the Templar. Equating everyone you don't like to every other bad guy ever is how you get things like the occupied territories of Israel (because Jews couldn't possibly run a concentration camp, that would be ludicrous!), and siding with Chechnyans that bombed civilians and held schools hostage (because they're fighting Russsians and commies are bad like in the Bond movies).

Well, not really; liberals are more in favor of a government involvement in economic terms, but they are also more in favor of individual rights, while conservatives tend to be much more pro-authority, pro-police state, tend to be in favor of more harsh punishment for crimes, tend to be more in favor of a strong military, ect.

Sonofadiddly:

barbzilla:

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

Like I said, we're all too stupid for that shit. Wink face to make sure you know I'm trying to be clever.

Lol, yeah we are on the same page. I just wanted to make the correction to the original statement, other than that agree with you 100%

barbzilla:

Sonofadiddly:

barbzilla:

I don't agree with the principles of anarchy because I don't think it would ever work. I think they have a wonderful ideal concept of a government, but just like utopia it would never work. As for surviving without central government, it will never happen. Those in power will always want to stay in power, and those seeking to dethrone those in power, seek power themselves. It is an endless cycle that we have endured since the dawn of time, and it is unlikely to ever change.

Like I said, we're all too stupid for that shit. Wink face to make sure you know I'm trying to be clever.

Lol, yeah we are on the same page. I just wanted to make the correction to the original statement, other than that agree with you 100%

Must. Resist. Pro-anarchy. Counter-arguement. HRRRRK!

GAH! NO USE! I'm not necessarily an anarchist, but an anarcho-capitalist. Which is fun and different from plain old boring anarchy and has books about it. Very short version: no government, everyone's individual rights are protected by insurance companies, capitalism is free of cronyism without a gov to hold their hand when they screw up so everything is pro-business and actually about success by being better. I believe this could work, but the world can't simply JUMP into this kind of society, especially not the USA.

On topic, based on what I got from the Assassin's and the Sons of Liberty themselves is that, as other people have said here, their ideology far more fits in with libertarianism. On the surface I'm a libertarian myself because if anarchy can't be achieved, at least libertarianism does still have a chance. Plus I don't get stones thrown at me for saying anything nice about anarchy. But the founding fathers, they were profoundly libertarian. Minimized government, freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of crapiness. Wait I think I got part of that wrong...

"History has shown that tyranny doesn't work out in the long run. But it has also shown that what equally doesn't work are political systems based around the assumption that human beings won't act like selfish dickheads." - Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw

Epic.

freakonaleash:
Or it ended when, you know, one side was surrounded and defeated by the armies of two countries? Also, I could make the argument that when the french revolution happened it only affected the people of Europe, not the whole world.

Not quite. The French Revolution was directly responsible for the rise of Napoleon. Without him, the Latin American and Haitian Revolutions would have never happened. The Louisiana Territory would never have been sold to the US. The ideals of the French Revolution- liberty, equality- might never have spread throughout the world if it never happened. Without the need to press-gang American sailors, the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened. Without Prussia's gains at the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Germany might never have unified, and the World Wars might never have happened.

Well, I would have used "The Keepers" as the name of this neutral, observant, balance-keeping third party, but I suppose those guys lost rights to the title of "Team Sensible" about halfway through Deadly Shadows.

CaspianRoach:
So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha.

Socially perhaps. Democrats tend to be a bit more favored towards big governemnt controlling things, but alot more allowing of social choice and the republicans go on and on about freedom from government intervention and control but if anyone wants to get married to a member of the opposite sex or doesn't want to live in a theocratic state all that freedom stuff comes crashing down. I would compare it more to the Libertarians vs the Communists. Or perhaps Anarchist vs Totalitarians but same basic idea.

CaspianRoach:
So the Assassins are Democrats and Templars are Republicans? Gotcha.

Democrats are Templars, Republicans are.... well lets not get there. Assasins are agressive hippies.

article has been great as always, why do peopel still create games about war of independance? noone cares.

I would vouch for Desmond's bloodline to be that third party Yahtzee is talking about.


I think that the writers of Assassins Creed are well aware that both the Assassins and Templars are idiots, and the resultant message will be 'let's work together'.

The world doesn't care about America's war on independence because no-one else learns about it. It's not relevant to anyone else except Britain and maybe mexico.

I'm assuming the war of independence is British colonies fighting off England/Britain. I'm not even sure because we don't learn about it in England. I learnt about Henry VIII 6 wives and how he killed them , i learnt about Ancient Egypt but not about America's war of independence against us or Napoleon.

Thus when watching Bill and Ted's excellent adventure or National Treasure there's a lot of references that I probably don't get.

I don't even have a point I thought I should just add something

Applies to US politics as well. There needs to be a "reasonable" party.

NinjaDeathSlap:
I like this idea. Focussing on a possible third ancient order who's job it is to keep the scales balanced between the two extremes of the Assassins and The Templars. They'd be be a lot better than the convoluted (and ultimately pointless) 'Ones Who Came Before'.

Also, now the series is done with Desmond's arc, there's nothing to stop them going backward in History again, so we may still see the French Revolution yet. Personally, I hope they go all the way back to a pre-AC1 date. Ancient Egypt perhaps?

Ive always wanted an ac set during the russian revolution. Great architecture, lots of people dying in mysterious ways and a great period for AC's philosophical themes .Also ubisoft has the fucking roots for it all from their own comic books .
Revolutionary 'Merica might have worked if they showed people standing up, get inspired and fight for their rights, I don't care in its historicly accurate or not, sounds way more interesting than some guy going around random battlefields .You never feel like Connor knew what he was doing, he just goes places and fiths other people's battles for them .It never feels like a journey, the story doesn't live up to this epic trailer .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph9jn5kRo9k
Pretty much all the effecting moments are here .

Falseprophet:
It only seems that way because a) there's this prevailing History Channel notion that wars are the only exciting parts of history and b) the official history curriculum in most Canadian schools is shit. 19th century Canadian history is full of rebellions, riots, political scandals, and at least one high profile assassination. It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.) Also, they don't seem to want to teach about those incidents of popular protest or martial law, but instead preach our national mythology of tolerance, compromise, and order without accounting for all the bruised knuckles and bloody noses it took to reach those compromises.

Sorry, my interest in history has been primarily military in nature since before I could read.

It all gets glossed over as if the only thing that happened between the War of 1812 and World War I was Confederation. (If you're lucky, they mention Louis Riel.)

Sound like things have changed. All I had to deal with in school was about the French-Canadians, Indians and Metis. The Red River Rebellion occupied a massive part of it, or at the every least, stuck in my head. Sure has left me pissed off that Riel has now become a folk hero in our countries typical manner of making heroes out of enemies of the British Empire and vice versa.

Beyond that in social studies was learning about places like Nigeria as I rolled my eyes and kept wondering why we weren't studying the history relevant to a Western nations: European, Roman and Greek history.

I'm born and raised BC, btw.

BlackStar42:

freakonaleash:
Or it ended when, you know, one side was surrounded and defeated by the armies of two countries? Also, I could make the argument that when the french revolution happened it only affected the people of Europe, not the whole world.

Not quite. The French Revolution was directly responsible for the rise of Napoleon. Without him, the Latin American and Haitian Revolutions would have never happened. The Louisiana Territory would never have been sold to the US. The ideals of the French Revolution- liberty, equality- might never have spread throughout the world if it never happened. Without the need to press-gang American sailors, the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened. Without Prussia's gains at the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Germany might never have unified, and the World Wars might never have happened.

The Americans introduced those ideals. Do you even realize that the French took inspiration from their War of Independence?

Their Revolution was the blackest of black marks on human history. It destroyed the foundations of Europe's cultural that took centuries to create and left nothing but Socialism and bloodshed in it's wake. You can thank that bloodthirsty mob for all the following revolutions and wars in history that killed more people in the last century than in entirety of human history combined.

The Latin American Wars of Independence had more in practicality to do with Britain and the Royal Navy than anything else. It was directly in the interests of Britain to break up Spain's colonial empire and open up new markets. But I will give you one thing, the meaningless cycle of bloodshed and infighting that resulted from it was surely inspired by the French. ;)

Also, 1812 had little to nothing to do with impressment, it was merely the casus belli used by the hawks in the US to do what they'd been itching for decades to do: Complete their ultimate goal of conquering British North America and make their country the only power north of the tropics on the continent.

As for the third group, I was expecting the Freemasons, to be honest. Not only did they really play a huge part in the revolutionary war, but they have a ton of conspiracy theory lore sent their way.

I don't think Connor's not exemplifying the views of the assassins was poor character development. I think this is an actual exploration by the developers into the cause. He's meant to not think what his actions really mean. He's meant to have an inner conflict over who he should be helping, what will result in the better outcome, between ideals and reality. The Templars are also meant to be sympathetic. They all exemplify a different aspect of the Templar ideology, and some of those make you legitimately question Connor's actions. Maybe I'm alone in this, but I find AC3 more ideologically challenging than either of the other two. AC2-era probably had the largest share of Templars who were just dicks and needed to die, and the fight against oppression and the motive of revenge were both apparent. In AC3 there's a bit of confusion over who wants what, Haytham in particular makes a good point about how the Patriots are using Connor and don't necessarily uphold Connor's ideals or those of the assassins. Even in gameplay, patriots are just as ready to give you a shove with their rifle as any British soldier, and you don't even feel welcome in the forts that you liberate. AC3 is about questioning what and who is right, and whether either side's ideal state could ever be achieved.

That said, the Illuminati or Freemasons. Shady force controlling things behind the scenes, no-one's sure what they really do? Come on. Although, they seem to already have established the Templars as being in every nook and cranny of control.

First I should state, I am an American, and I love our birth of a nation story..... But I agree with Yahtzee, I mean the French Revolution was what I expected to see as the next game ( and no not because Ubisoft is French) I expected to see it because it was a lot more relevant to the western world as a whole ( yeah I'm pretty sure that China India and Japan could care less about either event)

the whole peasants vs the aristocracy thing was taking place.... That would be prime meat for the Assassins/Templars.... When I first found out that they were doing the US revolution I was dumbfounded..... Couldn't figure out why, other than a large American market for the game.

beastro:
The Americans introduced those ideals. Do you even realize that the French took inspiration from their War of Independence?

While it influenced the French revolution, the ideas of the revolution came from Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. These three philosophers introduced political, intellectual and religious tolerance, power division, and people's sovereignity. These ideals became the ideological basis the revolution was based off.

The revolution had a lot of factors apart from ideology. The rich bourgeoisie wanted to change the old economic model (mercantilism) for a new one (liberalism), which would give them total freedom to make businesses, buy-sell land and properties and, in short, have economic freedom. While the aristocracy walked around wasting ludicrously huge amounts of money, the peasants had been enduring high taxes, a full decade of famine caused by a climatic phenomena known as "small ice age", and the impopular and stupid decisions of the king.

This revolutionary process would have happened anyway, because it was the anger of the unprivileged, overtaxed and hungry 95% against the privileged, rich and hated 5%, all of it harnessed by the unprivileged rich who wanted less king's involvement in the economy, equality in laws, and political power.

beastro:
Their Revolution was the blackest of black marks on human history. It destroyed the foundations of Europe's cultural that took centuries to create and left nothing but Socialism and bloodshed in it's wake. You can thank that bloodthirsty mob for all the following revolutions and wars in history that killed more people in the last century than in entirety of human history combined.

The collosal histeria that followed the revolution caused a lot of bloodshed, and it also destabilized Europe, which caused alot of wars, but it also extended throrough Europe the ideals of the enlightement, giving birth to a new way of making politics, a new society and, in the end, is directly responsible of the way politics areunderstood in the western world.

Also, the French revolution was made primarily by rich merchants who wanted an unregulated economy to earn more money, the rise of socialism and proletarian movements had to wait half a century to exist, before the movements were more on the "we lived better before" than on the "we want wealth to be redistributed"

In my opinion, the french revolution would have made for a great game. It was a major turning point in history, marked the start of the transition from absolutist monarchy to more representative government style, destroyed european politics at the time, marked a new era for humanity, most of the action transcurred in one city, a lot of the politics were followed or were about the destruction of buildings or the cutting of heads, leaders rose and fell in a matter of years, and ended with Napoleón taking over Europe.

The Rogue Wolf:
Well, I would have used "The Keepers" as the name of this neutral, observant, balance-keeping third party, but I suppose those guys lost rights to the title of "Team Sensible" about halfway through Deadly Shadows.

BlackStar42:

freakonaleash:
Or it ended when, you know, one side was surrounded and defeated by the armies of two countries? Also, I could make the argument that when the french revolution happened it only affected the people of Europe, not the whole world.

Not quite. The French Revolution was directly responsible for the rise of Napoleon. Without him, the Latin American and Haitian Revolutions would have never happened. The Louisiana Territory would never have been sold to the US. The ideals of the French Revolution- liberty, equality- might never have spread throughout the world if it never happened. Without the need to press-gang American sailors, the War of 1812 wouldn't have happened. Without Prussia's gains at the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, Germany might never have unified, and the World Wars might never have happened.

Right, the French revolution eventually caused these things, but the American revolution caused things that were just as big. The American revolution caused a world war between France, England and Spain. If that world war hadn't happened, what would the world of been like? What about Native Americans? Their lives were drastically changed by this new country. Many latin American countries and leaders, like Zapata, looked to the U.S revolution as a symbol for their own struggle for democracy and used it to rally their people. I'm not saying the French revolution didn't have some far-reaching consequences, but so did the American revolution, which makes it just as good of a point for a story in this time period.

Another name we could call the third group what maintains balance between the Assassins and the Templars is the Keepers..... oh wait, that name is taken already.

While it influenced the French revolution, the ideas of the revolution came from Voltaire, Montesquieu, and Rousseau. These three philosophers introduced political, intellectual and religious tolerance, power division, and people's sovereignity. These ideals became the ideological basis the revolution was based off.

You won't find much praise about them from me, looking at things from an Anglo--American perspective. Those who inspired Liberalism in our lands make those on the Continent pale in comparison.

The worst is the latter. For a man who talked about people's sovereignty, his philosophy sure had a lot to do with pushing authoritarianism.

The revolution had a lot of factors apart from ideology. The rich bourgeoisie wanted to change the old economic model (mercantilism) for a new one (liberalism), which would give them total freedom to make businesses, buy-sell land and properties and, in short, have economic freedom. While the aristocracy walked around wasting ludicrously huge amounts of money, the peasants had been enduring high taxes, a full decade of famine caused by a climatic phenomena known as "small ice age", and the impopular and stupid decisions of the king.

The latter had more to do with it, or rather the stupid decisions of the Bourbons going back to Louis XIV, their quest to become global hegemon and compete with England/Britain. Combine that with chronically poor record keeping and you had the prefect storm.

The deal breaker was the War of Independence: They were already buried in debt and then decided to bury themselves even deeper to get back at Britain for the Seven Years' War. By the time of the Revolution they didn't even know how much they had owing.

With that said, the need to sort out the trouble the Bourbons had created was not worth the trouble France caused Europe and the world.

This revolutionary process would have happened anyway, because it was the anger of the unprivileged, overtaxed and hungry 95% against the privileged, rich and hated 5%, all of it harnessed by the unprivileged rich who wanted less king's involvement in the economy, equality in laws, and political power.

Yeah, the Revolution was sure the best way to sort all that out. Typical Continental thinking, not gradual and evolutionary like in Britain.

The collosal histeria that followed the revolution caused a lot of bloodshed, and it also destabilized Europe, which caused alot of wars, but it also extended throrough Europe the ideals of the enlightement, giving birth to a new way of making politics, a new society and, in the end, is directly responsible of the way politics areunderstood in the western world.

The Enlightenment was already spreading, it did not require senseless war and bloodshed to push it around that destroyed too much of the old order. It could have been gradual, instead it left a sore wound in the heart of Western Civilization.

It's not the way politics are understood in the Anglosphere and I speak as a part of it. To us that moment in history is nothing but a collective disaster.

Also, the French revolution was made primarily by rich merchants who wanted an unregulated economy to earn more money, the rise of socialism and proletarian movements had to wait half a century to exist, before the movements were more on the "we lived better before" than on the "we want wealth to be redistributed"

The germ was there in the murderous behaviour of the masses who even went so far as to kill those who had royal sounding names.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 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