Fandom

Assassin's Creed Wiki

About historical mistakes in Assassin's Creed The Movie.

  • Hi. I am a Spanish user and I would like to point some historical mistakes in the movie that, for me, had not very much sense. It is a very long post and it was a lot of work, but hopefully it will be useful for anyone willing to read. Sorry for my English in case something is wrong, as it's not my mother language and it is complicated to talk about historical things in proper terms in a language that it isn't your language.

    I want to point first that it seems the Assassin brotherhood we see is really close to the Sultan of Granada, so I would say that we are shown the Granadian Assassin Brotherhood, instead of the Spanish Brotherhood, as Spain in that moment was actually divided in 3 kingdoms: Castile (Whose Queen was Isabel I), Aragon (together with Navarra, whose King of both was Fernando II) and The Emirate of Granada (Whose King was Muhammad XII). Castile and Aragon were both Catholic and united by marriage of their respective Queen and King (still 2 separated kingdoms, anyway), but Granada was mostly Muslim (With free of religion thought). I think this is important to note as traditions of this Brotherhood are closer to the ones we saw from Levantine Brotherhood, so I think it could be totally possible to have 2 or 3 different Brotherhoods operating in Spain in that moment, one for each kingdom, maybe collaborating between them as Italian Brotherhood could collaborate with the Turkish one. Actually when I played Discovery I always thought the brotherhood we see was actually the one from the kingdom of Aragon, as both cities Barcelona and Zaragoza, were in this kingdom, and that there wasn't a Brotherhood in Granada for some reason.

    Ok, let's do this. First scene, first mistake. Year 1492. Ok, but... Granada surrendered January 2 of 1492, so the movie should start in January 1 and end January 2? I don't know...

    Now, next scene in the past. Granada is sieged (we see the nowadays Spanish flag that wasn't used until almost 1800, moreover although as I said, there wasn't a Spanish kingdom yet). We see Aguilar and the assassins in Granada trying to avoid Prince Ahmed to get kidnapped. This is strange, as the one who was actually kidnapped was the Sultan Muhammad XII itself, but he was liberated in exchange of their 2 sons (Ahmed and Yusef) and his daughter Aixa. All of this happened at the beginning of the Granada War, in 1482, in the Battle of Lucena (a town near Granada). The children weren't liberated until 1492, ten years later, when the sovereignty of Granada was finally given to Queen Isabel I and King Fernando II (The Catholic Monarchs). The siege of Granada itself (that we can see in the movie) didn't happened until 1491 (9 years after the kidnapping).

    Next scene in Aguilar memories, we see them as prisoners in Seville, where they are going to be executed in an Auto de Fe by the Inquisitor Torquemada. We see the King and the Queen are there, with their entire court, because... why not. I mean, Granada and Seville are relatively far in terms of distance for that era (nowadays you can take that distance in 2:30 hours by car, but by foot would take more or less 3 days, and the ENTIRE COURT of the King and the Queen used to move where they were, so easily we could be talking about more than a week of travel). I don't see a point on the Catholic Monarchs assisting to the Auto de Fé either, mostly because they were in Granada trying to win a war, but also because they didn't use to do it, as Inquisition was a separated thing from the crown. You could think they used to assist to the Autos de Fe because there is this painting in the movie that shows them with Torquemada. This painting, actually, is fake. It is a modified version of a famous painting called "Auto de Fe en la Plaza Mayor de Madrid" by painter Francisco Rizi. This painting shows an Auto de Fe in Madrid in 1680 (almost 200 years later), and there isn't bonfires and such, as bonfires were more related to the witch-hunt in other parts of Europe. The only way a prisoner could die by a bonfire would be for repeat offending (as they could be punished and not executed). Actually, this Autos de Fe wasn't public executions but trials. After the sentence by the inquisitor was made, if guilty, the prisoner was given to the executors that proceeded to make their job in a private place. The real painting shows Carlos II, the king in that moment. That was actually because the last one was celebrated in 1632 and it this one was celebrated in a very solemn way. Oh, and another thing. WHY. WHY Isabel I has her face tattooed all over lol. It is just ridiculous and has no sense at all as those kind of tattoos seem more close to Arabic traditions. Anyway, no painting or representation of her has those tattoos.

    Next memory, they are again in Granada, where the Sultan is going to give the Apple in exchange of the Prince Ahmed. Here, something strange happens. After Muhammad gives the Apple to Torquemada, the fight begin and Muhammad and his son just... disappear. I don't know why, or how, but they just banish. This is not a historical mistake but I wanted to point it as I paid close attention in order to see if they run away or any of them die or what, and I was quite surprised that they are not shown again.

    There is something else I wanted to discuss, although this is more an interpretation issue. As Torquemada is shown being really close to the Queen and the King, it is shown as if he had even more power than them. This is just untrue. Ok, of course Torquemada had a lot of influence but he wasn't as powerful as it's shown. In Assassin's Creed Discovery we are told there is an Assassin in the court, Luis de Santángel. Also, in Project Legacy, Isabel I is shown as a harm for the Assassin cause. As there are certain true shadows on her decisions, such as the expulsion from Spain of all Jews, I would consider her, personally, more close to the Assassin cause than the Templars one. Why? Because the religious decisions she made, such as the expulsion of the Jews, were actually motivated by the Pope Innocentius VIII and the Inquisition. At this moment, all Europe had already expelled Jews but Austria, Portugal and Spain. She actually tried to convert them to Christianity before expelling them and really tried to protect them as much as they were able. They also opposed to slavery in America, and that's why Spain mostly never practiced slavery in next eras. Furthermore, they jailed Cesare Borgia for 3 years until he was able to escape and went to Viana.

    Hope this have been interesting for everyone who had the will to read it. Let me know what you think about everything.

      Loading editor
    • Hey Druaron, thank you for the informative post, and your English is fine! :)

      So first of all, have you read these other two threads: Assassin's Creed film Inconsistencies: Part I and Assassin's Creed film Inconsistences: Part II? Because in these two threads we touched upon some of the things that you just brought up. You can also read our article on the Granada War and see if that clears up any confusion. I will try to answer some of your questions here anyways.

      So the novelization actually states that the first events of the film takes place in the final months of 1491. Since we also noticed that it does not make sense for all the memories in the film to be set in 1492 because the formal surrender was on January 2, we mostly have just assumed that the film "rounded up" the date to 1492 (if it's not a failure in research).

      I wasn't aware that Muhammad XII's children were given over as ransom for him sometime in the war. I knew he was in Spanish custody several times at first. From my own research, he actually became their ally until the very end when he revolted. Since his own capture took place ten years before, I think it's still entirely possible that later, when he rebelled, then the Templars tried to kidnap Ahmed, perhaps shortly after he was returned?

      Ah, I think I entirely forgot to bring up how auto-da-fé weren't actually bonfires as is the common myth in my threads in the link above. I did also think that it was weird for the Catholic monarchs to be present at them. I think my reconciliation that was in the head while I was watching the movie ws that, "well, historical records can be wrong about details like that, maybe it was an exception".

      I thought Isabella was wearing a mask. I couldn't tell clearly.

      Did Muhammad XII and his son really just disappear? I remember I was so confused after the movie over what happened to them, but I wasn't sure if they really vanished or if I just forgot what happened to them.

      I didn't necessarily get the impression from the film Torquemada absolutely held more power than the Catholic Monarchs, just that he had a lot of leeway and influence though I did find it odd that he could flaunt his Templar allegiance so openly.

      I was definitely disappointed when I first learned in Project Legacy that Isabella was assassinated by the Assassins anyways in the end. I know that in the series, she was never a Templar, just misguided by blind faith, and it was a brand of blind faith more akin to just being over-pious than being radical extremist. I won't necessarily say she was closer to the Assassin cause though. She was far too religious since the Assassin's Creed teaches skepticism and agnosticism. Ultimately, she would never have been a person party to either factions, and I think the series portrayed this accurately with how she could be swerved left and right by the secret counsel of both sides. Her ultimate assassination by the Assassins really was a surprise to me though, and I wasn't sure of that decision; I thought it was a bold leap on the developers' part because it wasn't a necessary plot, but they went with it for whatever reason.

      I appreciate that you paid so much attention to the film's relation with Discovery and Project Legacy by the way.

        Loading editor
    • While it's true that Spain was divided during the events of the movie, the same argument could be made for Italy. During Ezio's lifetime, Italy was divided into city-states, and unification did not occur until 1861. And yet, the Assassins operating in Florence, Monteriggioni, Forli and Venice are all identified as belonging to one united Italian Brotherhood. As such, the Assassins operating throughout Spain are similarly identified as all belonging to one united Spanish Brotherhood, despite whatever differences there might have been between factions.

      I don't really think that Prince Ahmed's abduction was meant to be any kind of direct reference to something that actually happened, it was just a way for Muhammad XII to hand over the Apple to the Templars in exchange for Ahmed.

      Torquemada doesn't explicitly identify himself as a Templar up until he monologues to himself while holding the Apple. Ramirez identifies himself and his cohorts as Templars while giving his speech to the village in the first memory, but Torquemada never does such a thing.

      At the moment, we're assuming that the movie's events occurred on January 1-2. It's only way to have the movie's events happen in 1492 and still make sense. There's a brief throwaway line during Callum's second regression (the auto-da-fé), to send him to "the sixth", but we've no way of knowing whether or not that was a script error from an earlier draft or just a mistake.

        Loading editor
    • As Spanish and historian I want to answer. They left in months ago articles of press questioning the film by the image that was given of Spain. But for a lot of historical reference they (spanish articles) did not fail to show their romantic and historicist vision of the history of Spain. The idealization of the figure of the Catholic Monarchs is uncomfortable for me. All the historiographic revision of these sectors to try to end "The black legend" in the history of Spain does not provoke to greater objectivity. They fall into a presentism and idealization that create a "pink legend". All said the film was very loose, but apart from some detail I am not unhappy with the historical character of it.

        Loading editor
    • Spanish assassin
      Spanish assassin removed this reply because:
      Repite
      14:24, April 20, 2017
      This reply has been removed
    • Spanish assassin wrote: As Spanish and historian I want to answer. They left in months ago articles of press questioning the film by the image that was given of Spain. But for a lot of historical reference they (spanish articles) did not fail to show their romantic and historicist vision of the history of Spain. The idealization of the figure of the Catholic Monarchs is uncomfortable for me. All the historiographic revision of these sectors to try to end "The black legend" in the history of Spain does not provoke to greater objectivity. They fall into a presentism and idealization that create a "pink legend". All said the film was very loose, but apart from some detail I am not unhappy with the historical character of it.

      Oh that's quite intriguing Spanish Assassin, to hear about the idealization of the Catholic Monarchs. Do you happen to contribute to the Spanish Wiki as well?

        Loading editor
    • Thanks all for all the responses. A lot to discuss here for sure.

      Sol Pacificus wrote:
      Hey Druaron, thank you for the informative post, and your English is fine! :)

      So first of all, have you read these other two threads: Assassin's Creed film Inconsistencies: Part I and Assassin's Creed film Inconsistences: Part II? Because in these two threads we touched upon some of the things that you just brought up. You can also read our article on the Granada War and...


      Thanks for the links, I will read them later closely as it is a lot of info for doing it right now. It is good to see the novelization deals with the date problem. As I've read all the game novelizations by Oliver Bowden, I will try to do the same when the film novelization is released here in Spain (if it does).

      About the kidnap of Ahmed. I would doubt it, as the children were given to him after his rendition and was a condition of the negotiation. But yeah, as Assassin's Creed sometimes plays with the “innacurate facts that we only can know the truth when we enter into the Animus”, that would make a lot more sense and could be a perfect explanation.

      The auto-da-fé (we use the form in spanish, sorry for using it in my previous message) being that savage can be explained just by the fact that they are Assassins and they want to be specially cruel with them, although I can't explain the presence of the monarchs. And yeah, it wasn't a mask, they were actually tattoos.

      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.

      The Wikia Editor wrote:
      While it's true that Spain was divided during the events of the movie, the same argument could be made for Italy. During Ezio's lifetime, Italy was divided into city-states, and unification did not occur until 1861. And yet, the Assassins operating in Florence, Monteriggioni, Forli and Venice are all...


      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.

      About prince Ahmed, well, the thing is… it actually happened and they already had the child. So the only thing I can think about is that maaybe the Templars were trying to kidnap him from the Christian Spanish army for acting without the King and the Queen knowing it. The problem is that we see the prince Ahmed in the Auto-da-fé.

      I checked what you say about Torquemada not identifying himself as a Templar and, you sir, are right. Thanks for appointing it.

      Spanish assassin wrote:
      As Spanish and historian I want to answer. They left in months ago articles of press questioning the film by the image that was given of Spain. But for a lot of historical reference they (spanish articles) did not fail to...


      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.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

        Loading editor
    • Druaron wrote: Well, as they are all of them Assassins, it is obviously they are just one united Brotherhood

      Ohh, I forgot to clarify this for you as I know it can be confusing.

      So officially, the Assassins' organization is named the Assassin Brotherhood. It is alternatively named the Assassin Order, but that name is mostly attested in earlier sources, newer sources prefer Assassin Brotherhood.

      The Assassin Brotherhood until the modern times was divided into many regional branches, each led by a Mentor. These branches, called Guilds, also have the name "Brotherhood" in their official names (e.g. Ottoman Brotherhood, Italian Brotherhood, Chinese Brotherhood, Babylonian Brotherhood, etc.) even though they are all subdivisions of the overall Assassin Brotherhood.

        Loading editor
    • I never really got the impression that they idealized the catholic monarchs. Aside from the fact that they're barely in the movie, what little we see of them doesn't really paint either a positive or negative picture. The fact that the Templars manipulated Isabella through her faith is, as Sol Pacificus mentioned, not really an indication that she would have sided with them.

      As for Prince Ahmed, I suppose the Assassins could have covertly retrieved him from the Spanish Army and then the Templars, under the guise of the Inquisition, went to retrieve him in order to exchange him for the Apple. From the perspective of the monarchs and the army, the inquisitors were just doing their job by retrieving the prince.

      Speaking of the Assassins, we have to keep in mind that Aguilar was the last remaining member of the Assassins Guild in Granada. It's pretty likely that he spent the following years trying to rebuild a guild in Granada, probably with help from the other guilds. It seems that, as Sol Pacificus mentioned, the Spanish Brotherhood was united under the leadership of the main guild, located in Madrid, by the time of Brotherhood.

      Interestingly enough, despite the stereotype of the Assassins supposedly being anti-establishment anarchists, they're really not. Ideally, the Assassins believe that the leaders should reflect the will of the people and take care of them, rather than abuse their power for personal gain. As Ezio told Cesare: "a true leader empowers the people he rules".

      The Assassins supported and cooperated with plenty of rulers and authority figures throughout history. Although some of these alliances are indeed questionable, such as the Medici, one could argue that they were better than the alternatives. We also know of at least one Assassin, Yolande of Aragon, who was both a monarch and a Mentor. So we know of at least one occasion when the Assassins were in a direct leadership position, kinda makes you wonder how it went.

      As for Sun Yat-sen, I agree that it seems like a missed opportunity to do something better with him. I don't really mind him being a Templar, but I do think it would have been better if we had actually seen what had happened to him, rather than just being told. Perhaps it could later be revealed that he was trying to make peace and even forge an alliance with the Assassins, and then one of his fellow Templars killed him in an effort to prevent that, not unlike Bellec killing Mirabeau.

      After all, it was stated that the Templars in China had fractured into multiple factions, with the Shanghai Rite struggling to control the others. It's not too difficult to imagine that a Templar from one of the other factions might have believed that the fallout from Sun Yat-sen's death would have preferable to having a possible alliance with the Assassins.

        Loading editor
    • Much to answer. I need a good time to express my opinion in English in a satisfactory way. Just to clarify that I do not mean that the film idealises to the Catholic Kings, but to the Spanish media that criticized the film for the vision that was given of Spain. I expressed myself wrong: P

        Loading editor
    • A Fandom user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.