Talk:Order of the Ancients

This is the discussion page for Order of the Ancients. 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

Merge with Egyptian Rite of the Templar Order

There's no evidence, as yet, to suggest that the Order of the Ancients and the Egyptian Rite of the Templar Order are the same, or even a related, organisation. As such, there is no reason for these articles to be merged. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:35, September 15, 2017 (UTC)

I am reviving this topic from back when Origins released, since plenty more information has come with Odyssey, Valhalla, and Valhalla's near-endless expansions/supplementary material (and maybe Mirage?). In keeping with both the 2020 community discussion in which I had no part and Sol's proposal to merge Hidden Ones and Assassins on the basis that they kept the same beliefs under a new name, I think we should do the same for the Ancients and Templars. As I recall, even if Alfred betrayed the Ancients and set the foundations that Hugues de Payens and Bernard de Clairvaux used to properly found the Templars, both groups seek Pieces of Eden to amplify their control over humanity. I think the only difference is whether they wanted humanity subservient to the Isu—almost like the Instruments of the First Will, which Shaun Hastings even notes in Valhalla—with themselves as the slave drivers, or if they were fully in the front seat. I also do not think any branch differences, e.g. between the English Rite and the Golden Turtles, are to define the "core" Order, like how the Renaissance-era Spanish Assassins still severed their fingers even if it was no longer required. – Darman (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Chiming in to give my opinion on the matter and to apologize to you Darman, it was a bit impulsive of me to remove the merge notice right away. Well, in my opinion, we shouldn't merge these two together since despite having similar objectives and the Order's disappearance involving Alfred setting the foundations for the Templars, like you said, they have different structures and different beliefs: the Order directly worships the Isu and tries to return society to its mainframe during the Isu Era, whilst the Templars only worship the Father of Understanding (an influence of Christianity in its inner tenets) and seek a New World Order based only on pure control, only using the Pieces of Eden to achieve that goal; they do not try to establish a society similar to what was before. Even then, the Order's disbandment might have originated the Instruments, an enemy faction of the Templars who behave essentially like the Order did in the past. The similarities between the Order and the Templars don't compare to the ones between Hidden Ones and Assassins, they're essentially the same organization, with the same creed, the same practices and rituals, the same insignia, only suffering a name change due to cultural influences. Even within themselves, the Assassins practically consider members of the Hidden Ones to be essentially Assassins themselves. - TiagoFF (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Something that I just remembered, while I did not participate in it, as I said above, I believe most of the users who did comment in Sol's discussion on this matter in 2020 decided that the Ancients and the Templars were to be seen as the same. I don't believe anything has significantly changed since then series-wise, as that period mostly featured Valhalla's expansions unrelated to the Ancients and now Mirage. – Darman (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Then how do we fit the apparently Isu-worshipping Ancients to the initially-monotheistic Templars, while still keeping them separate from the Instruments? They still want world domination, but it seems through different means. At the same time, I believe Alfred's pseudonym of a "Poor Fellow-Soldier of Christ [and of the Temple of Solomon]", the Templars' full name, is intentional. – Darman (talk) 16:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Bumping this topic. Aside from the old community consensus linked above—which it seems is a now reduced to code text?—do any more recent media, or other users, argue in favor/against merging? – Darman (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I propose that it be merged with the main Templars page. While a lot of their activity was in Egypt, they still represented the organization as a whole. Levantine Assassin (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

With how Valhalla alone makes the clearest distinction between these Orders, given how Alfred founded it after conspiring to destroy it from the inside, the differences are too big to ignore as well as the added implication that they have more in common with the Instruments, whose implicated connection to Fulke is yet unknown aside from a codename called Instrument.

Sure, we have some old lore connecting history of the Templars to ancient rulers and their empires, and this itself doesn't justify why they should be merged in itself; taking Heresy into account after Valhalla, we don't know say how significant the failed reforms and death of King Arthur and what makes modern Templars still view him as one of their own in comparison to the success of Alfred as founder of the Templars as an actual organization with its own distinct beliefs and practice from the Ancients. Even then, the Abstergo Files speaks of there being several previous organisations and the Ancients itself having beliefs that in retrospect also would brand self-proclaimed Templars as both a fifth column and traitors—as per Templars/Uprising—who went to great lengths to not associate Templars with Isu worship at all, and this leaves far more questions than answers currently.

What we do have are only points of reference about ancient Templar history, not an outline from where we can say here are every movement of their history that defined them by their own beliefs and practice in their own word. Then we have the current connections and acknowledgements by modern Templars combined with a distinct Ancient order with beliefs branded as heresy by both Alfred and the modern Templars, yet has history in common with them as seen in, for example, the Encyclopedia. Merging the pages of both Ancients and Templars directly as of now would be more work than worth it given clear differences as organisations, and to base it on shared history alone without a clearer outline would be a hasty judgement. Can't compare this to Hidden Ones and Assassins, who have so much in common as beliefs and practice that they basically are the same. ACsenior (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

My point:

The transformation of the Order of the Ancients into the Templars as we now them today has always been a subject of considerable debate among our ranks. We have operated with the assumption that the Templars themselves hold some or complete knowledge of this evolution, but at present, no concrete historical evidence has ever made it into our hands.

What little data we do have is mostly a matter of public record, with some exceptions. It is commonly understood that the origin of the Knights Templar dates back to 1119 CE, and this indeed was the appearance of the public face of the Templars. However, our records attest to the existence of Templar agents at least two centuries before this date.

In one badly damaged document, an "Assassin Contract" from Normandy in the mid-11th century, the author makes free use of the term Templar. An earlier letter—this time from a Hidden One in the region of modern-day Dorset, circa 978 CE—makes mention of a "Templar spy" within the ranks of the Brotherhood. From this we can safely assume that the Templar Order, as an entity distinct from the Order of the Ancients, existed at some point in the mid-10th century.

The only thing Shaun knows as an historian on this is that it's still a debate and that we can not know anything, only suspect, as there's no actual historical evidence except for the now-known work of Alfred the Great. But that still is only a part of the evolution and not all of it, and all of it is only something Shaun suspects the Templars to have all the records of, hence even Alan Rikkin commenting on King Arthur is interesting in this context. So we know as of now only Templars know the whole change, but what is interesting is that Shaun can evidently claim the Templars distinct from the Ancients, a distinction made by Alfred himself and a distinction made by modern Templars fighting the Instruments, who are more far more similar in their beliefs to the Ancients, a similarity so close that comparing it to the transition from Hidden Ones to Assassins is actually a good comparison this time. Still, we can as of yet not know anything, only suspect, so suspect to be wrong or having overlooked something. ACsenior (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten the specifics of Shaun's note, thank you. Since you say that the series' cross-media outlines even more differences between the Ancients and Templars outside the Layla games, I will retract the merge proposal. Should we then have a section on both the "Templars" and "History of the Templars" pages using {Main|Order of the Ancients} and describe the limits of their ideological similarities? – Darman (talk) 00:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Yes, we should not misinform and present them as the same organization as their respective values on, say, who should control society differ. Ancients are for recreating Isu society with them in charge and Templars, despite their views on humanity and conflicts, still value it enough to want a society controlled by humans themselves, even if its just Templars as the ruling class. In one War Letter in Rogue is there a single Templar expressing the idea of becoming like the Isu, but that is just a Templar exception and one that expresses values that would and, as per their own values, should be executed for it. ACsenior (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright. As there is only slight beliefs overlap, as opposed to the stronger similarities between the Hidden Ones and the Assassins, are the Templars truly successors to the Ancients then, as both their {Faction Infobox} currently indicate? It seems more like a fraction of the Ancients' ideas stuck around and Templar beliefs are very derivative from it. – Darman (talk) 00:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless there ever is expansion on previous failed reforms—King Arthur—or another ancient ruler connected to the Templars that modern Templars themselves claim as their predecessor and not Subject 16's claims, which are yet to be completely verified as far Templar history is concerned given how little even the historian Shaun actually knows, I would actually be for starting to separate these pages further, including the faction boxes to separate history of the Templars/Ancients and so that we to an extent already do with the rank pages as all of them are not merged. Still need to be cleaned up should we start separating because Templar rank pages has a lot of Ancients info too. Additionally, in the separate faction boxes would I have Ancients/Instruments and Children of Cain/Templars, as we know of a Templar organization older than the Ancients themselves. Should this be done, then my answer to you previous question is now no, as there's no need for Ancients history on Templar pages apart from the work of Alfred the Great. ACsenior (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it's important to point out that narrative-wise, Shaun's note is setting up the status quo with Alfred at the end. The implication is that there's a transitional period with the Templars ascendant and the Ancients in decline. Vetinari^{(Appointment)} 11:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

True, up to a point, as there are clear differences by them as organisations, however Encyclopedia and The Essential Guide speak of the Children of Cain as Templars in regards to their history. Also, The Essential Guide categorise the Ancients as Proto-Templars while also in a paragraph say the Cult of Kosmos influenced the development to what would become Templars. All this can be true, while it is also true that Ancients and Templars are distinct organisations. Including these sources, my previous assessment to Darman is a bit too far, so starting to separate things complete on the pages shared is going too far. I am still for keeping their organization pages separate. ACsenior (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that ACSenior has already laid out all the reasons why the Order of the Ancients and the Templar pages should remain separate very well. To clarify, Darman, it is much to my embarrassment that I only just finished Valhalla's main story a couple of months ago. So for years I was actually behind on some of the most crucial aspects of the lore, and our discussion in 2020 partly reflects that. Since finishing Valhalla, I came to the same conclusion that the pages should remain separate, which as I recall is also the position of other editors like Lacrossedeamon and Cristophorus. At the same time, I do think that we should continue treating the Order of the Ancients as the Templars' predecessors, just not to the extent of merging their pages. I think you two already resolved this perfectly, but this was a topic I had been meaning to get back into to make clear my updated position, so I wanted to leave a comment here as well. I will also ask Lacrosse and Cris if they have anything else they wish to add about it because I feel like I am still letting all this sink in, and they are more knowledgeable than I am. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 22:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I shall await their advice to you on this matter, then, and look forward to our eventual collective ironing out of their infoboxes. As an aside, there's nothing to apologize for in being late to finish a game. For good and ill, we all have lives with obligations outside here and different play speeds. As someone who likes to take my time observing things/exploring, and admittedly getting distracted doing so, I cannot understand how some folks can speed-run these games; I am nowhere near finished Odyssey, much less touched its two lengthy, 3-part expansions. Given how large the games are now, as well as the fact that we find still more Notes when we thought we had written them all, I do not believe there is a limit to finishing within a "good length of time". Likewise, we should be happy when a player decides to start this series from any of the older entries, even if we know the franchise has grown substantially since then. – Darman (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I likely missed some version of this talk elsewhere, but how do we reconcile the Instruments and Kosmos with the Templars? There is no direct lineage of Instruments > Kosmos > Ancients > Templars, yet they somehow influenced the Templars despite seeming even further disconnected from them than the Ancients. While the Instruments have a clear goal of Isu-ruled Earth, I find the Kosmos is strange for claiming to want order by having a hand in everything yet seeming chaotic in their war profiteering from and political influencing off both Greek factions. – Darman (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Odyssey is all kinds of weird as the Order of the Ancients are depicted as almost anti-Isu and that could be how the Cult of Kosmos influenced them by remaining members such as Aspasia joining and bringing their views on the Isu and people like Kassandra with them. The Instruments we don't know because we have no idea when they were founded. Maybe they grew out of the remnants of the Order after Alfred's purge but the earliest concrete date we have for them is 2013 with Standish's manifesto. I would like to point out that ACSenior's last highlight on Shaun's note can be read that the Templars and the Ancients were both separate and extant at the same time. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

While there's no extended lore on this yet to properly connect the Ancients > Kosmos > Templars transition, I do personally think there is more to the Children of Cain and their history that might connect it, simply because Encyclopedia and The Essential Guide speak of the Children of Cain as Templars and that is significant in of itself. But that is just speculation on my part. ACsenior (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Darman, I just want to let you know that I thank you for your kindness and understanding about real-life demands as always!! I am just perpetually embarrassed by how the wider Assassin's Creed community must think of us! Anyway, since this is the first time I'm learning that you haven't finished Odyssey, I wanted to ask as an aside if you are comfortable with spoilers? I am guessing you are since you've been editing all this time and also if you're not, when Lacrosse already spoiled you here lol. But the ending to Odyssey and The Legacy of the First Blade DLC does provide answers to your question. Sol Pacificus^(Cyfiero) 02:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I know IRL demands all too well, they prevent me from staying at my computer all week to clean and find IRL sources for the desperately-needed Echoes transcripts that Soranin scrapes for me. I am here regularly, but there's a difference between devoting to a single page for hours/days on end when in The Mood to write compared to misc edits after work. =.=

I am somewhat fine with loose spoilers without specifics? I've read the book, so I broadly know Odyssey's plot, and I know its modern end—Kassandra surviving with the Staff, giving it to Layla, then dying—as well as Legacy plot details—Kassandra meeting Natakas, their child (but her mercenary work and pregnancy???), Natakas' death, and Elpidios being Aya's ancestor. But I haven't actually experienced them for myself. It's like reading a film's Wikipedia summary and watching it long after the fact: by the time I see it/reach these game sections, it'll still be in my head, but somewhat unclear. I've read details while editing too many pages, and it's really my fault for not avoiding Odyssey-related pages, but when the spoiler periods end or ATA does a breakdown video, there's no telling what info we come across, especially when we started adding Ancients info to the Templar page post-Odyssey/Valhalla. – Darman (talk) 03:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

As to your uneasiness with those elsewhere in the community who may think of us as pencil-pushing #FakeFans for missing obvious!! clues on the Ancients/Templars mess, Sol, to quote Franklin D. Roosevelt's advisor Bernard Baruch, "Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind". Try not to sweat it, it's not like our circles interact much to begin with. All writing for public online encyclopedias are perpetual works in progress. Recall that this site used to be more like GameFAQs and now it's developed to its current format, even if there's still gameplay holdover we're trying to clean. – Darman (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Just want to point out that the Encyclopedia uses the phrase “olden days” when talking about the Children of Cain and never says they were contemporaneous with the eponymous figure. For all we know the Children of Cain were a medieval faction of the Templars post Aelfred’s reform. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

A reminder, I did acknowledge the shared history of the Ancients and Templars, my point was to keep them as separate organization pages because of differences in beliefs and practice. So I walked back on being for separating everything and there's no need to repeat myself further than my initial arguments already do on this matter that, as per Sol, explained this issue eloquently. ACsenior (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Serpent's design

The serpent of the symbol is identical in its curves and general design to one depiction of Apep in the ancient Egyptian paintings. Curious detail, for certain, but enough to mention in the Trivia? Sadelyrate (siniath) 09:16, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

Basing the design of the Order's symbol on Apep would make sense, considering how Aya/Amunet and Bayek can be called champions of Apep's opposite, Ma'at; they use her symbol, a feather, in all of their kills. Sadelyrate (siniath) 09:38, July 15, 2018 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism?

Given the article on the Magi, as well as the emblem of the OotA during the Peloponnesian War, I wonder how much the Order is actually based on Zoroastrianism. 'Cause there's starting to be too many shared details. :D Sadelyrate (siniath) 15:10, December 8, 2018 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia’s article on them. It says Herodotos claimed the Magi were Zoroastrian priests who were behind the assassination of Cambyses II and all the shenanigans that followed after. Which is great for my new theory that Cambyses was a Sage which is why OoTA killed him. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 15:41, December 8, 2018 (UTC)

Roman Empire

Think the page could do with some more information on the Order during the founding/time of the Roman Empire - see the French version of the page. —unsigned comment by Jonjoshelvey (talk · contr)

Apart from like 1 paragraph about Caligula, everything else was already in this page, though? - Soranin (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)