Ubisoft Forums > Assassin's Creed > Assassin's Creed - General Discussions > Bad Guy Byzantines? A look back at Revelations' disappointment
View Full Version : Bad Guy Byzantines? A look back at Revelations' disappointment
retset123
NOTE: IN NO WHERE OF MY POST AM I PRO/ANTI: CHRISTIAN, MUSLIM.
In preparation for Liberation, I've repolished my Revelations cd and plugged it in. Things I didn't notice when I was just a teenager stood out to me now.
Assassins Creed is many great things, but being historically accurate is not one of them.
As a history buff, I must say I am ashamed that Ubisoft developers advertise their games as well-researched and historical.
I go a bit red whenever a review calls their games historically accurate nowadays.
Now, you guys by now might say: "Retset, what are you doing? Didn't you read the part in the intro of the game that calls it a work of fiction? " whilst inserting a condescending emoticon.
To that I would respond: "Yes, yes I have, but it's not enough of a warning to people that the story and game shouldn't be taken seriously."
You see, like it or not, Ubisoft still advertises its games as being 'historically-plausible', and like it or not, people not well versed in history actually thinkk that these games are 'educational'. They are misinforming their audience. History is not black and white. You can't shove entire civilizations into roles of good or evil.
Back to the issue at hand, I present a comparison:
In comparision, the Continental Army of the 13 Colonies were treated as freedom fighters under British oppression, whilst the Byzantines in Constantinople were treated like terrorists by Ubisoft.
First, note that less than 60 years ago, the Byzantines had ruled Constantinople for nearly 1000 years. They have a almost deserved 'right' to attempt to liberate their city ust like how France has a 'right' to liberate Bordeux and Aquitane from the English in the same time period.
Now, I'm not being Anti-Ottoman here. I am just sick of the black-and-white portrayal of history Ubisoft presents and the sacrificial civilizations they throw into the 'nasty Templars' against the 'almighty Hassassin'. I know Ubi needs a villain, but I'm sick of how they made the Byzantines into that role.
The Byzantines are always unjustly sterotyped as undeserving and vilainous by historians and non-historians alike despite them being a rich and unique culture.
This racist role Western civilization had towards Byzantium even played a significant role in the Greek War for Independence where they denounced their Byzantine heritage.
In modern day Greece (where it's common to destroy Byzantine momuments to get to the Ancient Greek monuments located below) and Turkey, their momuments are neglected except for those that had played a religious role.
It's nice to see Ubisoft continuing the Byzantine bashing role Gibbon started.
king-hailz
Im a muslim and i personally feel it was terrible how the otomans treated the byzantines in a way... for example turning the byzantine church into the hagia sophia mosque was disrespectful!
However in the games it was more that they showed both sides as the bad guy... in AC3 was the only time the assassin really favoured a side...
Legendz54
Yea Until the side he favoured screwed him over.. hard.
Jexx21
the assassins aren't heroes and the templars aren't villains
Just because the Assassins worked with the Ottomans and fought the Byzantines doesn't mean that the Ottomans were the good guys and the Byzantines were the bad guys.
Also, in AC3, George Washington was clearly shown at the end of not being a good guy and in the modern day the character Shaun repeatedly argued with Desmond over whether or not the British or the Colonies were rightful in the war.
Assassin's Creed never claimed to be historically accurate but in general they do provide a good basis and it's a great tool to inspire people to read more about history.
DumbGamerTag94
Yes the Ottomans desecrated the holy places of the Byzantines. The dude who wears the mask in ACR who's name I can't remember. In his bio it talked about how he wanted revenge for what the Ottomans did to his people. So I felt they were pretty fair. You just have to look at the other sides motives to do it. All of ACs games are pretty fair. But you usually have to look deeper into the info they provide and the story to find all the info. And don't oversimplify things based on one point of view or one character. They usually are accurate at least 80% of the time.
His name was Vali. He was the one with the hood.
But he was also a big fan of Vlad the Impaler, a guy who actually did do some pretty terrible things.
Saqaliba
In modern day Greece (where it's common to destroy Byzantine momuments to get to the Ancient Greek monuments located below) and Turkey, their momuments are neglected except for those that had played a religious role. It's nice to see Ubisoft continuing the Byzantine bashing role Gibbon started.
I am glad someone else has pointed this out. And so wonderful it is simply from a historical point of view. I converted to Russian Orthodoxy about 5 years ago after a long period of religious studies.* Being a Russian Orthodox Christian, I know a thing or two about Byzantine history. You see, Russia itself was formed because of the destruction of Constantinopolis, when the Ottoman's laid siege to her. So, really the Western (occidental) racism towards Constantinople is also a very anti-Christian. Ubisoft continue to use conservatives of tradition as their game's antagonists. The Emperors of Constantinople were Orthodox Christian, starting with Constantine himself from whom the city derives its name. The Templars were of Frankish origin and were at one point responsible for sacking Constantinople and killing thousands of its 'byzantine' citizens. The Templar's Frankish origin is likely derived from an earlier secred society known as the Vehmegericht (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehmic_court) - a juridical 'vigilante' group that operated under Charlemagne (Karl der Große). It was Charlemagne who caused the Great Schism between the East (Constantinople) and the West (Rome) in the first place. The inhabitants of Constantinople had a very very low regard for the Franks and their King, and to this day the Russian Orthodox still percieve Charlemagne as the prime cause of this division and isolation of what may be called 'two Europes' which still persists in the form of Atlanticism v.s. Eurasia. There is no plausible way that the Paleologos family would have formed any alliances with a surviving Templar faction! First, their ideas of Monarchy are completely different. Secondly, the citizen's of Constantinople would have percieved the Frankish Templars as the cause of weakness to Constantinople. A weakness that made it possible for the Ottoman's to take control.
The phrase 'Byzantine Empire' was coined and popularized by French Enlightenment scholars such as Charles-Louis Montesquieu. Montesquieu was the same author whose seminal volume The Spirit Of The Laws did much to inspire the Founding Fathers of the United States in their writing of the American Constitution and also incide the actions of Robespierre in the French Revolution. The word Byzantium itself is term which the citizen's of Constantinople would have never used in reffering to themselves, simply because it was coined in the 18th century!
What, if anything, is a Byzantine? (http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm)
"Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction was designed, developed and produced by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs"
The opening disclaimer of each Assassin's Creed game a saftey measure on Ubisoft's behalf. But in truth their disclaimer is nothing more than a fluffy platitude. The Assassin's Creed franchise is a falsification of history.
*I began my research with the Isma'ili Nizari's (Assassins) very own esoteric beliefs via a French oriental scholar known as Henry Corbin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Corbin). So I am particularly well versed in the very secret doctrines of the hass'assin (Syrian & Persian).
Saqaliba the devs actually said in the months leading to Revelations that the Byzantines weren't actually called that until the 18th century and that they saw themselves as Romans. Also the Byzantines weren't shown to exactly be evil in the game or anything like that, just that they were controlled by a Templar puppet.
I actually am fond of the Byzantines and Constantinople, I did a report on the Christian Church in Constantinople for a class of mine because of my hype surrounding Revelations.
pirate1802
Hm.. I must be playing the wrong game them because I never got the feeling the Ottomans were overtly favoured over the Byzantines. Both were depicted as pretty extreme, the way the Janisseries treated the people, those fruit vendors. And there's those words of manuel. Also, Templars arent the villains, neither are Assassins heroes. Not sure how anyone playing the series from the start still harbours this idea. Assassins are protagonists, Templars are antagonists. There is a difference between being protagonists/heroes and antagonists/villains.
And lol @ falsification of history. It is a work of fiction, if some misinformed kid somewhere gets the wrong idea then it's not my fault as the author. That was the whole point of the disclaimer. Might as well rail against every bit of historical fiction anywhere in the world. Or maybe it's alright until they target your country/religion.
DinoSteve1
lol if you are using Assassin's Creed to get an accurate picture of history, you are a moron and I have no sympathy for you.
Farlander1991
I just want to point out that, while Vlad certainly wasn't the nicest of guys, he's a national hero in Romania for a very good reason. He freed Wallachia from the Ottomans. He removed corruption from the land and tons of crime as well, and established a better order and economic situation. He raised the country from a very low point to a pretty high one.
And then, in-lore of the AC universe, the Assassins helped the Ottomans to take things back over and ruined everything. Of course Vali, who was an Assassin himself, would be pretty pissed off at the Assassins getting rid of somebody who was in the long run making things better (and from some point of view actually fulfilling the goals of the Assassins).
Thank you Farlander, I didn't know that.
I guess I've been influenced by some other media as well, such as Da Vinci's Demons.
SenseHomunculus
Dude - that's why nations fight wars! I make what was yours, mine. LOL
Any anyhow, as a Muslim you certainly know about the prohibition of artistic representation of the human form and the reason why the church (and pretty much every other landmark) was modified the way it was was to fall in line with tenants of Islam. They plastered and painted over all the exquisite mosaic work which represented humans (e.g. the emperor and empress), saints and heavenly beings, and the Christian god, and iconography such as crosses. Those buildings and monuments were otherwise left intact and following the secularization of Turkey under Ataturk, were turned into museums where most have been partially restored to showcase and celebrate both the early Christian as well as the subsequent Islamic artwork. "Disrespectful" they certainly were not, for the most part.
Megas_Doux
About Hagia sophia, well throughout history many have done the same: egyptians, babylonians, greeks, romans, ummayyads, spanish, ottomans, english, aztecs, mongols, etc etc etc etc....
AherasSTRG
As a greek, I wholly understand what the OP is saying. It seems like Ubisoft's team has tried to give good reasons to both sides and not create a black and white conflict.
And, actually, the fact that Ezio gives the leadership of the Ottoman assassins to a greek (Emmanuel Kantakouzinos) at the end of the game actually makes it up for me.
Great post, OP. And great point about Gibbon, too*.
I'm Turkish, born & raised in Istanbul/Constantinople. I was thrilled by the setting & characters in ACR**, but the overall role of the Byzantines felt as though they had plagiarized the plot from one of those imbecilic*** '70s Turkish B-movies about the exploits of noble 15th-century superhero-warriors against the infidels.
To be honest, I was surprised to see anyone non-Turkish stoop to such levels of Byzantine-bashing.
(* though you can't deny the literary quality of his narrative on Theodora ;) )
(** except the interior of the Hagia Sophia, which certainly didn't look that way back then; I think that's the way it would have looked in the 19th century)
(*** they're pretty hilarious, though; and remembered for that quality among young people nowadays. I don't think anyone ever took them 'seriously'.)
Dome500
To be honest, I never saw it the way you took it.
For me the Byzantines and the Ottomans were just 2 royal factions fighting for control in Constantinople.
That they are associated with the Templars and Assassins IMO was just a coincidence, while at the same time you can't say clearly that one side was allied with either Assassins or Templars since Ahmed himself was a Templar despite being an Ottoman.
Neither were the British or the Americans the bad guys considering the American "Freedom Fighters" did only start revolting because their taxes were too high.
They didn't fight for the Native Americans, which the game clearly showed they suppressed and displaced, nor did they fight for slaves to be free (since this was Abe Lincoln and the North later on), they only fought because they had no political say back in Great Britain and high taxes because the last war has caused a lot of costs for the United Kingdom and they though they could just let the colonies pay for it.
But is it worth starting a war over? Maybe, maybe not. That is highly subjective.
Neither the British nor the Americans are really the bad guys here, nor are the Templars or Assassins considered good or bad (although I have to admit Ubi has a tendency to show the Templars as the bad guys, that's why I like AC1 and AC3, because the Templars are NOT the total bad guys).
They represent 2 completely different and opposed radical philosophies.
Same goes for most fractions being in a conflict in the AC franchise IMO.
Yes, a person can misunderstand those situations.
But to be honest, due to the nature of the medium and since the game has to tell the story from a subjective perspective there is no way to avoid any misunderstandings.
I think they don't do a bad job about it, though I think their dialogue could be more specific, less black and white implying and more interesting sometimes.
Thanks for all the comments, though I'd like to ask people to state their points without describing religion. You see, this is not the first time this subject has been brought up actually. This topic has actually been posted on several forums across the net, and in all of them; the point of historical inaccuracy was never addressed because each OP focused on the 'Ubisoft is soanti-Christian' theme, which has detracted from the real issue.
In reply to several users saying that this is a work of fiction, and called me a moron... as I stated in my first post, while you may adknowledge that this is a work of fiction to be taken with a grain of salt, the mass majority of people (including me in my teenage years) don't know any better. The reason I'm posting this is not because I want to bash Ubisoft for being more Historically-knowledgable than them, but a plea for them to stop this incessant fabrication of history that regardless of what we say, has been proved to affect the less knowledgeable. I want this game to have a great and historical story alongside the gameplay.
-WARNING EMMINENT INFO DUMP BELOW-
Manuel Palaiologos is one of the villians in which he schemes to retake Constantinople. In real life, he does no such thing, after he became destitute, he shocked the entire city bý begging the Sultan to provide him with a home. Why was the city shocked one may ask, because this was one of the last members of the Palaiologos family that had ruled Constantinople as Emperors before they were toppled by the Ottomans. In Roman eyes of that time they were heroes for their part in liberating Constantinople from the occupying Latins.
Constantine Palaiologos, Manuel's uncle, was the last emperor of Byzantium who led a legendary last stand in Constantinple. Whose body, despite fakes by Mehmed that were laughed by the citizens, was actually never found. In Greece, he is known as the Marble Emperor, and is one of their most prominent national heroes and a unofficial saint.
To see Ubisoft slander one of this dynasty's last scions is disgusting in that there is no accuracy whatsoever. All the other proninent historical characters in the game are representions of themselves in that their story is at least partially based on their life. Manuel's is completely fabricated.
-End Dump-
As a historian, I can say these just a huge ton of real historical events that have happened in real life that are far much more gripping and interesting than the plotlines Ubi cooks up to complement the gameplay and setting. They don't have to have to make things up if they actually do 'intensjve research' as they claim they do, because they would have found that real life history is already so interesting
Sesheenku
The writing of the Templars in AC2 is intentional and the time period is referred to by Templars as the Dark Age of the Templar order.
They needed to adapt the history to the Assassin and Templar backstory so thus they took Manuel to be the Templar leader in the game, or at least I think he was the Templar leader.
All the other proninent historical characters in the game are representions of themselves in that their story is at least partially based on their life.
I have to say that I especially liked Selim I's portrayal as a thug.
He's probably the most bloody & ruthless ruler in Ottoman history, with patricide (covered in game!) and genocide to his credit.
Even his (by now 'official') nickname translates into 'ruthless'.
Not sure if serious post, but.
Did he really kill his father? I thought he only forced him to abdicate?
Though it would make sense if that's what had happened seeing the timing and someone dying of 'natural causes' at 31.
Ureh
The in-game database (written by a copy Clay Kaczkmarek's sub-conscious) don't seem to embellish Constantine Palaiologos' history. It states that Constantine Palaiologos prayed with his men in the Rose Church on the eve before the city was taken by the Ottomans. When the Ottomans were about to breach the walls of the city, he tore off his royal clothing and charged towards the opposing army with his men, while shouting, "The city has fallen, but I am still alive." The in-game database states that his body was never found among the dead. This bit of text can be found in the game.
If I'm understanding you correctly, then it was actually Ahmet who was the leader of the Templars. He used Manuel as a puppet.
Why shouldn't it be serious? Because I'm Turkish? :D ;)
Well, he assembled his own army and declared war against his father; the father died in battle, and Selim simply took the title.
He may not have killed him with his bare hands, but I'd say "waging war against a person, such that he ends up dying" qualifies as "killing".
The secterian violence he unleashed in the east, and the number of people killed in the conflict, is STILL a bitter memory among the Alawite people of Asia Minor.
I'm just saying that I don't feel like Ubisoft gave the Byzantines a completely unfair treatment, however, it would have been better if the Assassins didn't clearly support the Ottomans. At the same time, it makes sense because I"m pretty sure that a lot of the Constantinople guild were actually Ottoman, so...
Plus the Byzantines were being controlled by the Templars in the game.
If it makes you feel any better, the Byzantines are represented in Civilization, a turn based strategy game where you choose a historical civilization and play as them through time. The Ottomans are also represented. The funny thing about that is that the first (and capital) city of both of them are historically the same city (Constantinople and Istanbul). Byzantium is represented by Theodora I and the Ottomans by Suleiman.
@Jexx21 Is that for me? :p I wasn't disagreeing with your assessment that the two factions are portrayed fairly/equally (I do agree with you), I was just saying that it was Ahmet who controlled Manuel and the Templars. Cause Manuel was never the leader, right? :)
Well, I'm glad they got basic facts down for Constantine XI, though I've never heard of a Rose Church before. He prayed with the city in a famous last union between the Christian Church by having a Latin and a Greek priest perform rite together in the Hagia Sophia on the last night. [Cite:<Lost to the West>Lars Brownworth] You can also check Nicolo Bararo, who I believe also summarised it with Constantine calling the Byzantines "Proud heirs of Alexander and Caesar". (Primary Source)