Board Thread:Series general discussion/@comment-5415330-20170420110400/@comment-18014300-20170420223820

Druaron wrote:

Well, I don't mean that Isabel I should be an Assassin herself, just that she's portrayed very close to the Templar cause when for me would have more sense to be more close to Assassins than the Templars, because the reasons I gave. I can see your point about that she is too religious for being an Assassin, but I am not agree with you, as I think Assassins doesn't teach skepticism and agnosticism but freedom, freedom of religion included, and to look for your own answers and truth, even if your truth is based in a religion. Maria and Claudia Auditore were… maybe not really catholic, but religious persons with believes. Also Teodora Contanto was it (in her own way) and member of the Assassins. That's why I think, if Isabel I would have known about all the Templar/Assassin thing, she would have been more inclined to the Assassin cause. But yeah, as you, I preffer the idea of the monarchs being someway neutral and acting depending on the counsel acting in a given moment.

I think that had Isabella known about the Assassin-Templar conflict, she really might've been more inclined to side with the Assassins, especially if she ever learned that the Templars tried to assassinate her at least once, and the Assassins were the ones that saved her life. Unfortunately, the Templars really played on her devout Catholic faith. It is explained that part of the reason why the Templars were able to exert so much influence on her at the end was because Rodrigo Borgia, Grand Master of the Roman Rite himself, had become Pope. As Pope, the highest authority in the Catholic Church, it was perhaps unavoidable that Isabella would fall to Templar whims so easily, not ever knowing that the Pope was a Templar.

Druaron wrote: Well, as they are all of them Assassins, it is obviously they are just one united Brotherhood, but I meant they weren't more united between them than they were with the Italian one. For example, while playing AC II and Brotherhood, I never had the feeling that there was an “Italian Brotherhood” itself, but more like some cells here and there around all the city-states, as sometimes you could see them operating separatedly and colaborating between them just because proximity. In the same way, I think spanish Assassin cells were also other cells of the same “Assassin Mediterranean” brotherhood as it was Istambul/Contantinople. That's why in Brotherhood you can send your Assassin's to different parts of Europe (Barcelona is one of them actually), as you can do all over the Mediterranean lands in Revelations and that is why Yusuf calls Ezio “Mentor” even when we would think at first that Turquish Assassins should have their own mentor. So what I mean is that Granadian Assassins are not separated from the ones in Barcelona, but that they are different cells. That would explain some Discovery issues I think. But I am sure those issues are solved in the post related to the film and the movie inconsistencies that I am still have to read. Anyway, these are just my assumptions, as it feels more natural for me to think about the brotherhood in this way than thinking Spanish, French, Italian, and so on brotherhoods are separated from each other.

I'm actually a little confused about your suggestion of Assassin organization and your meaning about it. A unified Italian Brotherhood with its own Mentor as Mario Auditore, then Niccolò Machiavelli, then Ezio Auditore has been confirmed in sources. I'm also confused by what you mean when you propose that the Spanish Assassin cells were of the same "Mediterranean Brotherhood" (i.e. a Guild) as the one based in Turkey. I know that might seem to be the case because in Revelations, Yusuf calls Ezio Mentor, and they are able to send their Turkish Assassins to lead the "cells" (Dens as they were properly called at the time) throughout the Mediterranean at the time, but sources, primarily The Essential Guide, have confirmed that the Constantinople branch was its own distinct guild, the Ottoman Brotherhood. It is distinct from the French Brotherhood, the Italian Brotherhood, and presumably the Spanish Brotherhood, Levantine Brotherhood, Egyptian Brotherhood, etc., so there wasn't a unified guild/brotherhood of the entire Mediterranean. If it's confusing then, why Turkish Assassins were allowed to lead and establish bases in these other countries, I think it's because membership and operation between guilds was flexible. An Assassin from a different guild is allowed to join with another guild, or hold affiliation with both at the same time, or help re-establish a lost guild or branch in another country foreign to their own.

I want to clarify that at that time individual bases weren't called cells, which is a modern Assassin structure. Major branches, each led by a Mentor are called guild while individual bases throughout cities were called bureaus or dens, though there could be more than one den in a city.

I actually think that a unified Spanish Brotherhood was never entirely confirmed, but I'm not sure. Spanish Assassins are referred to, but I think it is entirely possible that at the time of the Spanish Inquisition, there were perhaps three different Assassin guilds in Iberia: one in Castile, one in Aragon, and one in Granada, or alternatively, on in Castile-Aragon, the other in Granada. I know other editors here have brought that up before. In fact, I think it's far more likely that the branch in Discovery, which seemed to be based in Barcelona was distinct from the branch in Granada in the film. Anyways, I think that by the events in Brotherhood though, the Granada guild probably merged with the Barcelona one anyways. My understanding is that each of the cities in the Brotherhood Assassin Contracts correspond to the capital bases of each guild. In Revelations the "capital" or main base for the Spanish Brotherhood moved to Madrid, but this is just my speculation.

Druaron wrote: Hey! Nice to see another Spanish user here! I am not a historian, but I studied Art History while studying Fine Arts, and History is something I've always loved to study and it's one of my hobbies nowadays. I can see by your user image that you aren't very attached to monarchy. I am also a republican myself (note for non Spanish users reading this that being republican in Spain is not the same that in USA or other countries, just that you don't agree with the monarchy we still have nowadays). Even being republican, I think it's not fair to just “hate” all kings and queens Spain had over the time, because judging the past with the today moral and ideals is just unfair. Actually Pérez-Reverte has written this weekend about this in an opinion-article called “Intolerancia y otras idioteces” that points very good arguments about this. Also, I read the articles that you say. This said, idealizing the Catholic Monarchs is the last thing I would do as I wouldn't idealize any historical figure for the same reason I wouldn't condemn it as I explained, and that, for me, there isn't such thing as “black legend” nor “pink legend” of Spanish history. I hate when people in Spain try to show their “non-patriotic” feeling by just emphasizing that black legend and in the same way I hate it when the Bertin Osborne-like people try to say we have been just the best because bla-bla-bla (I know you understand what I mean), because truth is, history of Spain is as black and pink as all the other countries. So, the thing is, reading now what I wrote, maybe it can give the impression that I want to idealize Isabel I, but I don't. For everything I said about her I have a reference for explaining it and I was the first one surprised about it. Anyway I don't really care about the image that was given of Spain, but more concerned about how the story of the film is well suited in the historical happenings, because Assassin's Creed is one of my favorites sagas and I want it to be as good as possible, and for me, that has a lot to do with how well it fits in history. This said, I really don't like when Assassins are really close to the power in that place. I didn't like the Medici-Ezio relationship, I didn't like the Washington-Ratonhnhaké:ton relationship, I didn't like the Queen Victoria thing, I liked, however, how the relationship between Ezio and Suleiman was very naturally built, but I didn't like the idea of Muhammad XII being almost an Assassin. But well, for me, those relationship, even if I prefer they were represented in a different way, doesn't make them a game changer thing. By the way: We a lot of Spanish people have a very strange feeling motivated for our society issues about how we feel about our history. I mean: Just look at the ending of Syndicate with Queen Victoria. If something like that would have been made with Aguilar and the Catholic Monarchs, I think a facepalm would have been the less we would have made.

I know what you mean that just because you think Isabella might be more inclined to align with the Assassins, doesn't necessarily mean you're thinking out of an idealization of her character. As a Chinese, I was devastated when I learned that they had made Sun Yat-sen, the father of republican China, who is the closest Chinese equivalent to Gandhi or José Rizal in our eyes, was actually a Templar Grand Master killed by the Asssassins. I think subconsciously for me, my disappointment over it is because Sun Yat-sen is a great hero to the Chinese, but I still think that objectively, it doesn't make too much sense. Sun Yat-sen was one of the most devout proponents of democracy and willingly stepped aside from his election as president to a man that would become a dictator because he himself was afraid he was contradicting his principles by risking civil war in a bid for power. Others pointed out that he could still be a Templar because he was a nationalist, but of course all these historical characters can all be written out as Templars or Assassins from certain angles, it's a matter of whether it's a probable choice. Sun Yat-sen was the closest to Assassin ideals of his generation, a firebrand advocate of freedom of speech, freedom of beliefs, human rights, and more. It makes even less sense for him to be killed by Assassins because he was the only one keeping the country together from being destroyed by the ambitions of warlords, and his death immediately led to the rise of many wannabe dictators. Sorry to go off on that, but I just thought that this point you brought up is similar to my thoughts about Sun Yat-sen.

And yes, it is understandable that we might feel uneasy about Assassins associating with powerful rulers. It seems like it might contradict their ideals, and I think actually, it's an internal struggle of Assassins in the series themselves. However, I also think that one criticism that Templars have about Assassins, that they're always a reactive force, never a proactive one, while false, does have a grain of truth, and that truth might be that because Assassins loathe wanting to take power themselves, they never seek positions of direct leadership of the world, and I think Assassins throughout history probably have debated among themselves at what point is that unreasonable, at what point does being afraid to associate with power means that they're limiting their capacity to lead the world. It's a slippery slope to megalomania when a person thinks that they have to be powerful to contribute to society, as we see Templars are on one extreme end of it while Assassins are on the other. In any case though, Assassins generally do at least try to influence powerful figures; I think for their goals, it doesn't help if they don't seek political alliances, just like in real-life, because as much as they are a shadow organization, they are still a political entity, and political entities, to achieve their dreams, have to form connections.