Talk:Qin Shi Huang
Staff of Eden[edit source]
For future notice to everyone, Qin Shi Huang is not stated to have been in possession of a Staff of Eden. I don't know why people keep adding this, I don't see the humor in it. But any further mention of this should be removed immediately. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 16:22, February 13, 2013 (UTC)
- Really strange speculation from them.Indeed,the staff or sceptre doesn't stand for power or dominance but mostly just walking sticks in China's history.Sleeplust (talk) 13:40, August 21, 2015 (UTC)
Templar allies vs. Templar puppets[edit source]
Hello everyone, I'm just copy-pasting on individual talk pages a question I posted on the Templars article talk which did not get any response.
I noticed (just to stick to 5 out of 6 Assassin Seals targets plus Julius Caesar, as examples) that:
- Gaius Julius Caesar, Cleopatra and Caligula are considered Templar puppets;
- while Xerxes I of Persia, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang are considered Templar allies.
So my question is: where does this piece of information come from? How do we know that the formers were mere Templar-manipulated pawns with little or no personal power, or perhaps were not even aware of being under Templar influence (!), while the latters were able to treat with the Order on an equal position? Is it sourced, or simple speculation? I'd really appreciate any answer. --Piero.schiavone1994 (talk) 21:33, December 14, 2016 (UTC)
About Qin Shi Huang's Ally[edit source]
There is no doubt that Qin Shi Huang was aided by a proto-Templar organization of China. In the entry article of Qin Shi Huang, the editor had named the proto-Templar organization as the Order of Ancients directly. While the first appearance of the Order of Ancients in China was in the Chinese comic Assassin's Creed: Dynasty, which never mention an earlier appearance of the Order of Ancients in Qin dynasty (nor the collaboration between Qin Shi Huang and proto-Templar organization). Maybe there will be a certain proto-Templar organization having a different name. I suppose the alliance of Qin Shi Huang should be proto-Templar organization instead of the order of Ancients.
(And there is no evidence that the Order of Ancients possessing a vast influence across the continent at that time. Don't they spreaded the influence on the basis of an empire? Which western empire had met with China ancient dynasty or Zhuhou state then?)
(Or maybe you can provide a reference that can prove Qin Shi Huang allied with the Order of Ancients. Why you just can fill the blank of setting without any evidence? Are you all scriptwriters from Ubi?)关云 (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure why his affiliation on this page was changed from proto-Templar to Order of the Ancients, and I would like to hear from Master Sima Yi who was the one who made this edit. However, if I had to guess, this change was almost certainly in line with our conclusion that the Order of the Ancients and Hidden Ones be defined as Templars and Assassins respectively, not proto-Templars or proto-Assassins. We had an extensive community discussion on this many months ago owing to the frequent mischaracterization of the Hidden Ones as "proto-Assassins" rather than Assassins. Many fans mistakenly believed that the Hidden Ones were "proto-Assassins" because they don't bear the name "Assassin" and predate the reorganization by Hassan-i Sabbah. The cut-off is subjective, as it is with the evolutionary history of any state or organization, but we determined that sources indicate that Ubisoft draw the line at the founding of the Hidden Ones, treating that as the founding of the Assassins. It is too much to summarize our findings here, but if you would like to read the discussion, you may do so via this link. Hence the Hidden Ones are one and the same as the Assassins, but under an older name.
- This isn't irrelevant because by extension, we had the same question regarding the Order of the Ancients' relation to the Templars. Are they proto-Templars, or are they Templars by an older name? This lore video uploaded by Ubisoft and presented by Darbyy McDevitt, the narrative director, opens with the statement "Originally called the Order of the Ancients, the modern day Templar Order..." This confirms that the Order of the Ancients and the Templars are one and the same, with continuity between one another and also reinforces what is explained in the second edition of Assassin's Creed: The Essential Guide.
- Older sources like the glyphs in Assassin's Creed II and the Assassin's Creed Encyclopedia establish Qin Shi Huang as an affiliate of the Templars, and I am glad that we are not in dispute about this. I should point out also that the problem with the term 'proto-Templar' is that that term is not attested in sources, and the discussion I opened up for this community was in part to address this issue. It would be more accurate to call Qin Shi Huang an affiliate of Templars than an affiliate of proto-Templars because of this. It seems then, that by the logic that the Order of the Ancients was the Templar Order by an older name, Master Sima Yi concluded that it was appropriate to call Qin Shi Huang an affiliate of the Order of the Ancients.
- I do wonder if, by strict sourcing though, it would be more appropriate to use 'Templar' not 'Order of the Ancients', treating 'Templar' as a name that can be applied retrospectively to the organization prior to them taking on the 'Templar' name during the Crusades. We have seen this being the case by many characters in the games. The logic behind this edit, to repeat, is likely that since 'Order of the Ancients' has been established as an older name for the Templars before the Crusades, it would be more accurate to use the right name for the time period. However, even if older sources establish that Qin Shi Huang worked with a Templar organization (and not, as you say, a proto--Templar organization), I think there may still be the question if it was known by the name Order of the Ancients in this period of China. I would like other editors here to address this question because I know at least a few of us think it is more accurrate to refer to Wei Yu as an Assassin, not a Hidden One.
- All in all, this is just another effect of the ambiguous retcon by Ubisoft and the absence of strong sources clarifying this topic. Sol Pacificus(Cyfiero) 15:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps Sol has forgotten one thing. Cult of Kosmos is also considered to be the proto-Templar organization, so we cannot simply think that all the early Templar organizations are called the Order of the Ancients. There is no direct official evidence that this type of organization in the Qin Dynasty that was called as the Order of the Ancients. Therefore, under the premise of pursuing accuracy and reducing disputes, it is more appropriate to adopt the statement in Assassin's Creed Encyclopedia —— the early Templars 诸葛彻 (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Cult of Kosmos is not a proto-Templar organization. - Soranin (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- is it? So why does Cult of Kosmos's Connection with the Templars write: the Assassin's Creed: The Official Collection does consider the Cult of Kosmos a proto-Templar organization.[19] Is this a mistake?诸葛彻 (talk)诸葛彻 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- The Official Collection is not a primary source, unlike the Essential Guide cited just before that: While the Assassin's Creed: The Essential Guide refrains from calling the Cult of Kosmos a proto-Templar group and only categorizes the Order of the Ancients as such. - Soranin (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing to indicate that there were several proto-Templar groups, or specifically more than one proto-Templar group active at the same time. You have a source as recent as this video (narrated by a script writer, which the OP of this section wants to emphasize) stating that the Templars were originally called the Order of the Ancients, there is no evidence of the Templars succeeding more than one group. As Soranin pointed out, The Official Collection is not a primary source and it does not trump other sources that state the contrary. Additionally, I don't want to state things here as I know some of the other participants of this discussion did not play or finish the game, but Valhalla also goes into further detail on the origins of the Templars. The notion that there "might" be multiple simultaneous proto-Templar groups, or that the Order of the Ancients cannot be in China for historical reasons, borders on original research and fan fiction, and cannot be sourced. There is only a singular precursor named for the Templar Order, the Order of the Ancients, and to say that there might have been multiple is speculation. -- Master Sima Yi Talk 17:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)