Talk:Liberalis Circulum

This is the discussion page for Liberalis Circulum. Here, you may discuss improving the article. To discuss the subject itself, use the Forums.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith Do not insult other people

Move to Liberalis Circulum

Since we have all the Templar and Assassin branches at their official names, such as "Chinese Brotherhood of Assassins" or "West Indies Brotherhood of Assassins" or "Ottoman Brotherhood of Assassins, shouldn't we also have this page at its official name? There is an Italian Brotherhood of Assassins, but the one of the Roman times is a distinct branch and also predates the development of Assassin Guilds by Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad. Thus, its official name here is Liberalis Circulum, even if it's not in the same format as the official names of he later guilds, it's still its official name and therefore it would be consistent to have this page moved to Liberalis Circulum even if it's a foreign word. The Essential Guide doesn't confirm if it was also known as the Roman Brotherhood even though the Egyptian Brotherhood of Assassins and the Persian Brotherhood of Assassins bore those names (perhaps applied by modern Assassins retroactively). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 18:00, February 14, 2017 (UTC)

I suppose for the sake of consistency it would be preferable to call them the Roman Brotherhood of Assassins. If it helps, the statue of Leonius in Assassin's Creed II explicitly identifies him as a "Roman Assassin". The Wikia Editor (talk) 01:32, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

I would actually disagree with calling them the Roman Brotherhood of Assassins because not only is that not confirmed to have been one of their official names, but we also know their official name to be Liberalis Circulum. In fact, as far as I know, they didn't go by the name "Assassin" themselves at the time, though I'm sure later Assassins applied that name retroactively to them. I think the only issue with using Liberalis Circulum is that the name is in Latin. I personally would prefer using the English translation "Circle of Liberals", but as a translation, it might not be an ideal choice. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:18, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they probably didn't call themselves Assassins, as the word itself did not even exist at the time. We do, however, know that the term was used by modern Assassins to refer to them as such. I don't really have a problem with the name being in Latin, we use untranslated names when it is appropriate (e.g. Château Clique) and this would be such a case. Another thing I just thought about is the possibility that the Liberalis Circulum was merely a public front for the Roman Assassins, or at least a faction within their group. Pretty much how the Narodnaya Volya was a faction of the Russian Brotherhood. The Wikia Editor (talk) 02:39, February 19, 2017 (UTC)

Hm, the page has just been moved to Roman Brotherhood of Assassins. This is really uncomfortable for me, as this will now mean that we would have to add a "conjectural name" tag when it has a canonically verified name (Liberalis Circulum). Actually come to think of it, perhaps we should've already added that tag even with "Roman Assassins". Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 15:54, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

Technically, "Roman Assassins" is not a conjectural name because the members of this group were indeed referred to as such by modern Assassins. They were also indirectly referred to as the Roman Brotherhood in the Assassin Brotherhood database entry in Syndicate. I guess it's a matter of whether we want to be consistent with the naming scheme of the other Brotherhoods. The Wikia Editor (talk) 17:38, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

I honestly find that reference to the branch in the Roman Empire in the Syndicate database entry to be a bit too indirect to say that it was referred to as the "Roman Brotherhood". Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 17:13, March 1, 2017 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia refers to Aquilus as being a member of the "Assassin Brotherhood from Lugdunum", which unfortunately is not very helpful. The Wikia Editor (talk) 20:13, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

I failed to move it to Liberalis Circulum because that page already exists. However, if the trivia point that the name is incorrect Latin is correct, then I change my mind and say we should hold off on moving it to that name, canonical or not, for it could be in error. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 08:38, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, after looking a little at Latin grammar, I'm fairly certain that we are meant to inflect the name according to whether we use it as a subject, object, etc. In other words, even if sources give it as Liberalis Circulum, the direct object form (assuming in the correct scenario of it being used as a direct object), we should be using the nominative form of Liberalis Circulus. It should be seen as the same name just modified based on grammatical rules. We can easily move this to Liberalis Circulus because I don't think that page exists yet, but I wanted to double-check this with you. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 09:04, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

Although I agree with you about the use of the Latin name, we still have the problem of it not being directly sourced. I suspect that Ubisoft's use of the name is similar to their incorrect use of the names of the Zhengde and Jiajing Emperors. I'm also still somewhat iffy about using the contemporary name for the Brotherhood. The Wikia Editor (talk) 12:26, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

I personally think that a different grammatical case of a name can still be appropriately sourced to the source material (though I forgot which comic it specifically was). I think if we're seeing this from the perspective of Latin, not English, different grammatical forms of a word or name does not indicate distinct words or names. However, you are right to reference the error with the Ming dynasty emperor names (which by the way I'm so surprised you paid attention to that o_O because I thought no one did!). Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 10:58, August 2, 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to revive (necro? xD) this discussion to say that if there are no objections, I am moving this page to Liberalis Circulus next Sunday. Since 2017, we had established that grammatical corrections to canonical names is valid and does not equate to using a conjectural name. In otherwise, Liberalis Circulus is perfectly valid as a canonical name even if the source gives Liberalis Circulum because it is grammatically incorrect. If Roman Brotherhood really is a conjectural name, then this page should be moved to Liberalis Circulus. I understand that there were also questions before regarding whether that name extends to the whole branch or not, but I am not comfortable keeping this page on a conjectural name regardless, in the same vein as Iltani's Order which is what reminded me of this since we're also under talks to move that back to "Babylonian Brotherhood". Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 01:40, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

Move reversal

I would hereby like to start a discussion about moving the page back to its former name. Bear in mind, this will include slight spoilers for Valhalla.

Even before Valhalla's release, I do not think there was enough indication that the term "Liberalis Circulum" was synonymous with the Roman Brotherhood. If anything, what the French comics seemed to imply when they were first released was not that this was the term for a specific branch but that the name was synonymous with the name "Assassins". Now that the French comics' canonicity is dubious, and the only clear canon mention of it is a namedrop in the Last Descendants novel, I think there is not enough to say that this is the name the Roman Brotherhood went by.

Without a clear definition of what the Liberalis Circulus is, I think it's presumptuous to say it's anything other than a group of people who operate as members of the Brotherhood. For all we know, this is a subgroup, or perhaps a council of members who represent the branches located in different parts of the empire. All members that we know of, except perhaps Lugos, operated pretty far away from Rome and Italy.

On to the implications of Valhalla: there are documents related to the Hidden Ones' activities in Britain from the Empire's early days to the end of the 4th century. None of the documents or contracts use the name Liberalis Circulum or Liberalis Circulus, only Hidden Ones. I think this on its own is enough to indicate the term Liberalis Circulus is not synonymous with the Roman branch of Hidden Ones, nor is it a name that was used to refer to all members of its Brotherhood.

My strong recommendation is to move this page back to "Roman Brotherhood of Assassins", or, as another suggestion, something like "Roman Brotherhood of Hidden Ones". There were Hidden Ones active in other places during the time of the Roman Empire, so we cannot use the term "Hidden Ones" to refer to those working across the Empire. At the same time, I would suggest creating a separate page for Liberalis Circulus, keeping its function and role vague as we simply do not know what exactly its current role in canon is, and merely describe it was founded by Lugos and listing the people that made up its ranks as of 259 CE. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 11:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I say we ping Aymar, Darby, and Kirby asking for clarification and if none is forthcoming or it is insufficient we move forward with your proposal. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we'll get a very clear answer from that, but feel free to go ahead. Darby in particular hasn't had anything to do with any of the products that mention the Liberalis Circulum. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 12:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we put the informations related to the Roman Hidden Ones in the Italian Assassins page ? Because all the other branches as Egyptian, Greek and Britain have info on their Hidden Ones incarnation. Or we can put all the info related to the Hidden Ones of every branches in one page and removed the Hidden Ones part from the different Assassins branches.Francesco75 (talk) 12:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I know I said on Discord that I would recuse myself from this discussion, but with this information in mind, I am comfortable supporting this move reversal. However, I think it might make more sense to leave this page as is and create a separate page for Roman Hidden Ones instead due to this page originating about Liberalis Circulum and for the sake of preserving its edit history dating to long before Origins? Apart from this, if we are making a conjectural name for the Roman branch of the Hidden Ones, I would be strongly opposed to using 'Roman Brotherhood'. It was already confusing enough that branches of the Assassin Brotherhood also carry the name 'Brotherhoods', but I think it would add to the confusion since we're clearly deriving 'Brotherhood' from the era of the 'Assassins' name. Why not just call it 'Roman Hidden Ones'? It can be seen as a simple, descriptive title and doesn't suggest it is necessarily a proper name. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 16:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to update on this: Lacrossedeamon tweeted at Aymar, Darby and Kirby, but there is no response. In response to Sol Pacificus, the term "Brotherhood" was used in the Hidden Ones' time as per Valhalla. Unless you want to make a clear distinction whether the term "Brotherhood" was synonymous with "branch" in the Hidden Ones' time, which right now I can't clarify much on. I'm really good with any other naming option, as long as it's not the current. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 12:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that more people have had the chance to play the game, I would propose reviving this discussion, as a move for the page is overdue. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 19:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

~Don't really have anything to add other than I also support the move reversal. - Soranin (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I support the move reversal. A lingering question I have though is if it wouldn't make sense to merge a page on the Roman Hidden Ones with the Italian Brotherhood of Assassins. (The idea that the Roman Republic/Empire, Italian city-states, and Italy are all distinct without continuity is actually inaccurate.) Whether the Roman Hidden Ones should be merged with the Italian Brotherhood depends on whether the lore supports the idea that there was unbroken continuity between them. I don't remember anymore if it was clearly established that the Italian Brotherhood wasn't established until the Polo's since originally, it was said that Altaïr was the one who laid the seeds for the globalization of the Assassins.

Another reason why I ask though is because we seem to be indecisive whether regional Assassin branches like the Chinese, Egyptian, and Persian Brotherhoods can retrospectively cover the activities of Hidden Ones in the regions. Of course, we have established now that the Hidden Ones are Assassins by a different name, but it is a different matter whether the Chinese Brotherhood should be considered the same branch as the Hidden Ones who operated in the Tang dynasty. They are both Assassin groups, but it could always be that the branch in the Tang dynasty went extinct later and then a new Chinese branch without continuity with the Tang branch was founded later. So I have confusion over our conceptualization of Hidden Ones and Assassin regional branches, which would also inform our solution here.

For my clarity, this article should be about the branch founded by Amunet in Rome, yes? And do we know if it definitely extended across the whole of the Roman Empire, or was it confined only to the Italian peninsula?

Apart from this, I don't have any objections over using Brotherhood in the name anymore, but what would be the arguments between (1) Roman Brotherhood (2) Roman Brotherhood of Assassins (3) Roman Hidden Ones (4) Roman Brotherhood of [the?] Hidden Ones? Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 06:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I can weigh in on this a little bit, given the context of both old lore and the recent revelations in Valhalla.

Since Assassin's Creed II, we've been aware of Assassin activity in the Roman Republic and Roman Empire since at least its early days through the existence of Leonius and Amunet, and in Brotherhood through the story of Brutus. We also know that some of the territories outside of Italy had Assassin activity through Aquilus, Accipiter and Cuervo (Aymar's recent comments indicate that they are entirely non-canon, but the last time I spoke with him he said the stories aren't canon but the characters are, which is what I'll continue bearing in mind).

Through The Last Crusade, we also know that there at least was not an Assassin Guild in Venice, but this doesn't necessarily mean that there was no Assassin activity in the city, it just might not have been organized. However, it might also mean that there indeed was no Assassin presence in Italy for a time, or that the Assassins in the whole of Italy indeed were few in number and quite scattered. Domenico Auditore, at least, descended from a long line of Assassins, but his Assassin ancestors might have moved from the Middle East to Italy some generations earlier for all we know.

Personally, I always assumed that something happened between the fall of the Roman Empire and the Crusades that led to the extinction of Assassin presence in most of Europe, hence why there were so many territories Altaïr attempted to spread Assassin influence to. Now, Valhalla seems to establish that this is true to an extent, and that the fall of the empire itself is the cause.

Through the notes in the Assassin bureaus in Valhalla we know that the Hidden Ones retreated from Britain shortly after the Romans pulled back from it, and Database: The Hidden Ones indicates that this was the case for at least more than one outlying territory. This would also mean that the Assassins' presence in territories to the east of the Roman Empire would not have gone through a similar dissolution or reorganization, as they would not be substantially affected by the empire's fall. This also seems pretty in line with what we know.

Ultimately, we can't be 100% sure whether the Italian branch dissolved after the fall of the Roman Empire or continued in some form until the Renaissance, because that's not in the lore just yet. My suggestion would be to do the following:

1. Include information on Amunet's Brotherhood in the Italian Brotherhood page similar to what happened with the Egyptian and British Brotherhood pages, and the inclusion of Brutus' activities in Greece in the Greek Brotherhood page.

2. Have a page for Roman Hidden Ones, or Roman Brotherhood of Assassins for consistency, that includes the Hidden Ones' activity in the regions of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire.

3. Keep the Liberalis Circulum page and specify what we know of it: that it is a group of some Assassins operating throughout the Empire founded by Lugos, and write what the members we know of were up to.

-- Master Sima Yi _Talk 09:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the best plan of action, I feel. - Soranin (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, but the last thing we still need to figure out is what name to use: "Roman Hidden Ones", "Roman Brotherhood of Assassins", or some other variation? Personally I think "Roman Brotherhood of Assassins" might give the wrong impression it's a more official name as opposed to the descriptive "Roman Hidden Ones", but what do you guys think? As a side-note, I'm fine changing Liberalis Circulus back to Liberalis Circulum despite my prior arguments about grammar. It has grown awkward for me too, and if I am being so strict on grammar, we should technically be inflecting it every time based on its position in a sentence, and I fear that would be too demanding for editors. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I support Sima's 3 suggestions and Sol's concern about the naming. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 10:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Lacrosse, I don't think Sima's list were different options, but his whole proposal in 3 points. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 21:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest Roman Hidden Ones. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 16:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Considering the discussion has been going since November and there has been no voice in opposition to the move reversal, I hope nobody is opposed to me going ahead and making the move. Every day the change is not implemented is a day the wiki is presenting misinformation to its readers. As per Sol Pacificus' earlier suggestion, I created a separate page for "Roman Hidden Ones" to preserve the edit history of this page, as it dates back to before Origins was released. If there are still strong opinions against the term "Roman Hidden Ones" that instead favour another term, the discussion can keep going. -- Master Sima Yi _Talk 15:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes I am perfectly fine with you making the changes right away. Our policy page technically says to leave discussions up for two weeks, but oh my god, I keep finding that that is too long of a wait—if not for my impatience than even for the sake of efficiency. I think we might want to revise the policy so that changes are allowed to be acted on in 1 week if feedback has been unanimous. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 23:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)