Assassins' Creed Historically unrealistic?

[The rhomaio]

Now, you’re probably expecting me to go on a binge telling you of the "Historically inaccurate depiction of Christians!"

Nope, I know I'd get torn apart in such an argument.

My qualms are with the base historical facts. I have put my argument in a spoiler just in case you want to go right to the question.

For example; In the game lore the assassins became the "Hashshashins" during the middle ages, promoting peace and stability through assassination. However, history tells us that Hashshashins were, petty. They killed for their own benefit instead of for humanity's. Some have went as for as to say that the Hashshashins were the founders of modern day terrorism. (Due to the furthering of their cause at the expense of human lives, and killing for religion.) Now, I kinda wonder why they portray them as the good guys, when in history they weren’t the Robin Hoods that Assassins Creed portrays them as.

My second point is about Assassin's Creed: Revelations.

Now, again you may think that I, (Due to my nation obviously being based on the Byzantines) am very appalled at their portrayal of Byzantines.

This time you would be right, I think they portrayed both Byzantines and Orthodox Christians in an appalling and undeserving manner.
However, rather then be mad, I find it, funny, laughable that a gaming company would undergo such a major project without enough historical research.
But that argument would also be torn to ribbons due to differing views and history being blurred by propaganda.
So, once again, I go after base historical facts, portrayal of women in the Ottoman Empire, namely, Dilara.

She is an ottoman spy, (I might go as far to say, Ottoman spymaster)

But in reality, a woman's place in the Ottoman Empire was to manage the household and to socialize in women's only places like Şırahane. Women in the Ottoman Era did not have the right to work in a profession, the right to freely marry and divorce (or remain single indefinitely), and did not have the right of movement.

She is said to be the unofficial leader of the spies, but the ottoman views regarding women would be too restrictive for any women to be able to place herself in charge of men.
Soooo, with men having such a more dominant role in life, why are the other Ottoman spies actually listening to her?
The answer is, it couldn't happen. I find it sad that Ubisoft didn't do their research well enough.

You could say it doesn't matter, it's a game and they can put whatever they want in it. That is partly true, it is their right to make whatever game they want, they could make a game where you play a 7.8 foot Hitler, that bullets bounce off his rippling pecks and abs and hit the same evil allies that shot them, and would be well within their rights. I would laugh at such a game, unless people actually viewed it as historically accurate.
See, I have a friend who I recently introduced to Byzantines, (It is a sorry world we live in when one has to explain Byzantines to people who have never heard of them) he told me that all he knew about Byzantines was from assassins creed, (in fact, my friend takes a lot of the historical side of assassins creed literally.)

Out of respect, I've not flat out told him that most of it is artistic license, not fact. It has taken every fiber of restraint I have not to tell him that the Ottomans did not treat the Byzantines that well after the fall of Constantinople.
In my opinion, sometimes inaccurate media can have disastrous effects on peoples' views of history.

I could bring up more points but I feel these are sufficient for my questions;

1: Do you view Assassin's Creed as historically accurate?
2 : ( If you answered yes to 1) do you think that Ubisoft could have made the games better?
3: Do you think that historically inaccurate movies and games can by harmful to the overall face of history?

[Sulania]

Now, you’re probably expecting me to go on a binge telling you of the "Historical inaccurate depiction of Christians!"

Nope, I know I'd get torn apart in such an argument.

My qualms are with the base historical facts. I have put my argument in a spoiler just in case you want to go right to the question.

For example; In the game lore the assassins became the "Hashshashins" during the middle ages, promoting peace and stability through assassination. However, history tells us that Hashshashins were, petty. They killed for their own benefit instead of for humanity's. Some have went as for as to say that the Hashshashins were the founders of modern day terrorism. (Due to the furthering of their cause at the expense of human lives, and killing for religion.) Now, I kinda wonder why they portray them as the good guys, when in history they weren’t the Robin Hoods that Assassins Creed portrays them as.

My second point is about Assassin's Creed: Revelations.

Now, again you may think that I, (Due to my nation obviously being based on the Byzantines) am very appalled at their portrayal of Byzantines.

This time you would be right, I think they portrayed both Byzantines and Orthodox Christians in an appalling and undeserving manner.
However, rather then be mad, I find it, funny, laughable that a gaming company would undergo such a major project without enough historical research.
But that argument would also be torn to ribbons due to differing views and history being blurred by propaganda.
So, once again, I go after base historical facts, portrayal of women in the Ottoman Empire, namely, Dilara.

She is an ottoman spy, (I might go as far to say, Ottoman spymaster)

But in reality, a woman's place in the Ottoman Empire was to manage the household and to socialize in women's only places like Şırahane. Women in the Ottoman Era did not have the right to work in a profession, the right to freely marry and divorce (or remain single indefinitely), and did not have the right of movement.

She is said to be the unofficial leader of the spies, but the ottoman views regarding women would be too restrictive for any women to be able to place herself in charge of men.
Soooo, with men having such a more dominant role in life, why are the other Ottoman spies actually listening to her?
The answer is, it couldn't happen. I find it sad that Ubisoft didn't do their research well enough.

You could say it doesn't matter, it's a game and they can put whatever they want in it. That is partly true, it is their right to make whatever game they want, they could make a game where you play a 7.8 foot Hitler that bullets bunch of his rippling pecks and abs and hit the same evil allies that shot them, and would be well within their rights. I would laugh at such a game, unless people actually viewed it all as historically accurate.
See, I have a friend who I recently introduced to Byzantines, (It is a sorry world we live in when one has to explain Byzantines to people who have never heard of them) he told me that all he knew about Byzantines was from assassins creed, (in fact, my friend takes a lot of the historical side of assassins creed literally.)

Out of respect, I've not flat out told him that most of it is artistic license, not fact.It has taken every fiber of restraint I have not to tell him that the Ottoman's did not treat the Byzantines that well after the fall of Constantinople.
In my opinion, sometimes inaccurate media can have disastrous on peoples of views of history.

I could bring up more points but I feel these are sufficient for my questions;

1: Do you view Assassin's Creed as historically accurate?
2 : ( If you answered yes to 1) do you think that Ubisoft could have made the games better?
3: Do you think that historically inaccurate movies and games can by harmful to the overall face of history?

1) No, it's not. Anyone who goes to video games expecting to learn history is, well, a bit of a moron. People don't play minecraft to learn how to build houses. People don't play Call of Duty to learn to fight in the military. They play it to have fun and entertain themselves.
2) I don't really care if they make it more historically accurate or not. It's a video game series, not an encyclopedia on history.
3) No, I don't. Mainly because people shouldn't go to these movies or play these video games for their historical correctness. They watch or play them to have fun.

[Avenio]

This is a series where hyperadvanced human-but-not-human aliens engineered humanity as a slave race and left their weapons laying unsecured around in barely-concealed ruins for later humans to run around and try to conquer the world with.

Any resemblance to actual history is purely coincidental.

[Blasveck]

What Avenio said.

It's a videogame that is meant to be historically unrealistic.

[Starblaydia]

This is a series where hyperadvanced human-but-not-human aliens engineered humanity as a slave race and left their weapons laying unsecured around in barely-concealed ruins for later humans to run around and try to conquer the world with.

I love this explanation for why historical realism in Assassin's Creed shouldn't even be a question.

Because it's totally historically accurate. They even had the little details right, like parkour in the 15th century - it must have taken painstaking research go get that right.

[Kainesia]

Well, they got the part about templars running the world right.

[Kainesia]

Well, they got the part about templars running the world right.

And there was some periods of history where roof guards mysteriously fell off en masse.

And some guy dived off the hagia sofia, landed in a bush and walked off like it aint no thing.

[Nasall]

when a game about aliens who came to earth years ago and helped developed the human race, only to disappear or die later (haven't done much reading on the first civilization) and have humans with their genes have children that create two factions that fight over the ruling of the world, History is merely a backdrop that brings more, dare i say, drama to the conflict. though if i had to care about the history in one of the games, it would be AC IV..... for obvious reasons.

[Cuprum]

Now, you’re probably expecting me to go on a binge telling you of the "Historical inaccurate depiction of Christians!"

Nope, I know I'd get torn apart in such an argument.

My qualms are with the base historical facts. I have put my argument in a spoiler just in case you want to go right to the question.

For example; In the game lore the assassins became the "Hashshashins" during the middle ages, promoting peace and stability through assassination. However, history tells us that Hashshashins were, petty. They killed for their own benefit instead of for humanity's. Some have went as for as to say that the Hashshashins were the founders of modern day terrorism. (Due to the furthering of their cause at the expense of human lives, and killing for religion.) Now, I kinda wonder why they portray them as the good guys, when in history they weren’t the Robin Hoods that Assassins Creed portrays them as.

My second point is about Assassin's Creed: Revelations.

Now, again you may think that I, (Due to my nation obviously being based on the Byzantines) am very appalled at their portrayal of Byzantines.

This time you would be right, I think they portrayed both Byzantines and Orthodox Christians in an appalling and undeserving manner.
However, rather then be mad, I find it, funny, laughable that a gaming company would undergo such a major project without enough historical research.
But that argument would also be torn to ribbons due to differing views and history being blurred by propaganda.
So, once again, I go after base historical facts, portrayal of women in the Ottoman Empire, namely, Dilara.

She is an ottoman spy, (I might go as far to say, Ottoman spymaster)

But in reality, a woman's place in the Ottoman Empire was to manage the household and to socialize in women's only places like Şırahane. Women in the Ottoman Era did not have the right to work in a profession, the right to freely marry and divorce (or remain single indefinitely), and did not have the right of movement.

She is said to be the unofficial leader of the spies, but the ottoman views regarding women would be too restrictive for any women to be able to place herself in charge of men.
Soooo, with men having such a more dominant role in life, why are the other Ottoman spies actually listening to her?
The answer is, it couldn't happen. I find it sad that Ubisoft didn't do their research well enough.

You could say it doesn't matter, it's a game and they can put whatever they want in it. That is partly true, it is their right to make whatever game they want, they could make a game where you play a 7.8 foot Hitler that bullets bunch of his rippling pecks and abs and hit the same evil allies that shot them, and would be well within their rights. I would laugh at such a game, unless people actually viewed it all as historically accurate.
See, I have a friend who I recently introduced to Byzantines, (It is a sorry world we live in when one has to explain Byzantines to people who have never heard of them) he told me that all he knew about Byzantines was from assassins creed, (in fact, my friend takes a lot of the historical side of assassins creed literally.)

Out of respect, I've not flat out told him that most of it is artistic license, not fact.It has taken every fiber of restraint I have not to tell him that the Ottoman's did not treat the Byzantines that well after the fall of Constantinople.
In my opinion, sometimes inaccurate media can have disastrous on peoples of views of history.

I could bring up more points but I feel these are sufficient for my questions;

1: Do you view Assassin's Creed as historically accurate?
2 : ( If you answered yes to 1) do you think that Ubisoft could have made the games better?
3: Do you think that historically inaccurate movies and games can by harmful to the overall face of history?

1) No, it's not. Anyone who goes to video games expecting to learn history is, well, a bit of a moron. People don't play minecraft to learn how to build houses. People don't play Call of Duty to learn to fight in the military. They play it to have fun and entertain themselves.
2) I don't really care if they make it more historically accurate or not. It's a video game series, not an encyclopedia on history.
3) No, I don't. Mainly because people shouldn't go to these movies or play these video games for their historical correctness. They watch or play them to have fun.

I agree, it's a fiction so i don't care too much about history accuracy of the game.

[Aeternabilis]

Well, they got the part about templars running the world right.

And there was some periods of history where roof guards mysteriously fell off en masse.

And some guy dived off the hagia sofia, landed in a bush and walked off like it aint no thing.

I gotta admit, I lol'd at that one. But really, if you're expecting historical accuracy in a video game for happy fun times, you'll be sorely disappointed.

[TotallyNotEvilLand]

1: Do you view Assassin's Creed as historically accurate? No.

3: Do you think that historically inaccurate movies and games can by harmful to the overall face of history? Generally not. It's pretty harmless. Unless you're a goddamn idiot and think Wolfenstein: The New Order actually happened, in which case, I feel bad for you.

[Faith Hope Charity]

Who cares? Its just a game, and if you take a game that seriously as to expect it to be historically accurate, I think you got bigger problems.

[The Sotoan Union]

Ubisoft does this on purpose. They know it's inaccurate, but it makes for a good story.

[Conserative Morality]

To be fair, the first game made something of an attempt to portray historical events as merely twisted around to suit a particular narrative.

After that, they dropped all pretense of following anything but the barest of the historical framework they place the narrative in.

Your mileage may vary on whether or not that was a better choice.

[The rhomaio]

Mostly very good points, but ubisoft disagrees or more accurately false advertizes.

Copied from their website, "Assassin’s Creed immerses you in the realistic and historical Holy Land of the 12th century-"
No matter the disclaimer, they are saying that it is "Realistic and Historical."

Regular people, gaming sites, even %@&*ing historians are lauding it for it's accuracy, so forgive me if I disagree that only idiots take it as true history. It is rather ignorance that defines these people.

Which leads me back to my original points, In my opinion, the entire Assassin's Creed Revelations storyline is complete idiocy. I cannot imagine the logical reasoning of Byzantines allying themselves with Templars.

"We have been defeated by the Ottoman's mostly because Europeans wouldn't get off their behinds and help us, so we shall now ally ourselves with a European Crusader Order. We shall totally ignore the deep anti-Eastern Roman sentiment that is present within almost all Crusader factions, and the fact that it was crusaders that raided and pillaged Constantinople in the first place. We shall also share our ranks with Ottomans, even though by all reasoning we should hate them passion."

"In addition we shall now call ourselves Byzantines even though the term will not exist for several more centuries."

I mean seriously? The most likely faction to be affiliated with the assassins and not be affiliated with Templars that comes to my mind is the Byzantine Empire. We're talking about a nation that used every dirty trick in the book to win, from bribing barbarian tribes to attack their enemy, to ASSASSINATING political opponents.

Yet, they deplored killing, and usually wished to live in peace. They usually would bribe, assassinate, and fight dirty in order to avoid death on either side.
Kind of reminds you of "Here we seek to promote peace, but murder is our means"?

I just hate it that they are joining the stereotypical ranks of movies and games that are portraying them as bad guys, it decreases interest in them and makes a large part of the public view them in a bad light.

[Sulania]

Mostly very good points, but ubisoft disagrees or more accurately false advertizes.

Copied from their website, "Assassin’s Creed immerses you in the realistic and historical Holy Land of the 12th century-"
No matter the disclaimer, they are saying that it is "Realistic and Historical."

Regular people, gaming sites, even %@&*ing historians are lauding it for it's accuracy, so forgive me if I disagree that only idiots take it as true history. It is rather ignorance that defines these people.

Likely the reason for the advertizing of "Realistic and Historical" is to show that it's a Historical Fiction piece. You know, something fictional based on historical events. The Third Crusade is historical. The game takes place during the Third Crusade, at least the Animus bits. Thus making it Historical, but it's still fiction.

As to the realistic bit, I can't say much there. But you have to immediately lost the sense that any of it happend the moment a small golden apple starts messing with the minds of everyone. Or when you hear about Humanity being created by some super advanced race, known as the First Civilization. I think most people of at least standard intelligence can reasonably deduce that it's not realistic, no matter what Ubisoft says.

To the people that say it's historically accurate, it's usually the people that are crazy that get the most attention now a days. So, no surprise from me that they got some attention for thinking AC is accurate historical wise.

Which leads me back to my original points, In my opinion, the entire Assassin's Creed Revelations storyline is complete idiocy. I cannot imagine the logical reasoning of Byzantines allying themselves with Templars.

"We have been defeated by the Ottoman's mostly because Europeans wouldn't get off their behinds and help us, so we shall now ally ourselves with a European Crusader Order. We shall totally ignore the deep anti-Eastern Roman sentiment that is present within almost all Crusader factions, and the fact that it was crusaders that raided and pillaged Constantinople in the first place. We shall also share our ranks with Ottomans, even though by all reasoning we should hate them passion."

If you actually try to understand the story to Assassin's Creed, you would understand that the Templars are not just a Crusader Faction. They are an organization that has existed since Cain killed Abel, Cain was the first Templar. Again, are we really going to say this is historically accurate? Anyway, the organization didn't care for Catholic expansion unless it suited their ends.

The Byzantines allying with the Templars was an alliance made out of necessity. The Byzantines wanted control of Constantinople/Istanbul, Templars wanted to increase their influence and power. How to do this better than help the Byzantines regain control of their once great empire, then put Templars into power in the new Byzantine Empire. Byzantines get their empire back, Templars increase their power.

"In addition we shall now call ourselves Byzantines even though the term will not exist for several more centuries."

That's just a way of making the person playing the game understand who they are. We use the term Byzantine now, so that's what they call them in a video game that was made now. And was set back then. It was more of making them easy to identify. And again, historical fiction, they have artistic license because it's fictional.

I mean seriously? The most likely faction to be affiliated with the assassins and not be affiliated with Templars that comes to my mind is the Byzantine Empire. We're talking about a nation that used every dirty trick in the book to win, from bribing barbarian tribes to attack their enemy, to ASSASSINATING political opponents.

Yet, they deplored killing, and usually wished to live in peace. They usually would bribe, assassinate, and fight dirty in order to avoid death on either side.
Kind of reminds you of "Here we seek to promote peace, but murder is our means"?

The Assassins did not just assassinate people for fun, they have this whole ideology and this whole setup. Just because the Byzantines assassinated people, doesn't mean they had the Assassins do it.

Haytham Kenway, a Templar in AC3, assassinated General Braddock. A Templar who assassinated someone. Assassins don't have a monopoly on the art of assassination.

I just hate it that they are joining the stereotypical ranks of movies and games that are portraying them as bad guys, it decreases interest in them and makes a large part of the public view them in a bad light.

I don't know why it decreases interest in them. In full honesty, AC: Revelations actually got me interested in the Byzantines. They're my fourth favorite subject historically speaking. The Hagia Sophia is one of my favorite structures on Earth. So, I don't know where your coming from with decreased interest in them.

And finally, it's historical fiction. In real life, the Templars were not founded when Cain killed Abel. There are no magical apples created from some master race that can create illusions and control people's minds. And the Byzantine Empire was not some tyrannical empire bent on world domination. It's fiction, it's not real. It may be based on real stuff, but it's fiction. It's a fake thing for the entertainment of people, that is based on events in history.

[Adab]

1: Do you view Assassin's Creed as historically accurate?
2 : ( If you answered yes to 1) do you think that Ubisoft could have made the games better?
3: Do you think that historically inaccurate movies and games can by harmful to the overall face of history?

1: No. I do not and have never viewed Assassin's Creed as historically accurate. It's a game, after all, and it needs a good story to keep gamers interested.
2. N/A
3. Maybe yes, maybe no. In this case, I don't think so. Many people love playing Assassin's Creed, but that doesn't mean Assassin's Creed is a serious historical work. As pointed out here before, it's historical fiction.

[The rhomaio]

I'm not saying they hired they assassins, I'm saying they operated somewhat similar to them.

If in reality, the Byzantines tried to get back Constantinople, I'd think they'd be more likely to ally themselves with the Russians. They have strong Orthodox roots and they have an effective military. Rather then ally themselves with people that by all public accounts, have a strong basis in Catholicism.

I'm saying that people have a hard time separating the Historical from the fiction. It makes for inaccurate assumptions about certain details in history. I just think Ubisoft should tell people more that it is fiction loosely based on history, at least it would make my job a bit more easier.

Also, I knew that they called them Byzantines in-game to make it easier to identify them, I just put the last part as a joke.

[Sulania]

I'm not saying they hired they assassins, I'm saying they operated somewhat similar to them.

Again, that Assassins are not unique in their operations either. The Assassins and the Templars did pretty much the same things at that time. The Assassins assassinated people, the Templars assassinated people. The Templars poisoned people, the Assassins poisoned people. Their only real differences in their structure was: Their whole ideology, and who they derived support from.

The Assassins drew much more support from the people, who they wanted to free. The whole philosophy of freedom for everyone is pretty much the basis of the Assassins. Therefor, most of their resources come from the lower classes and the oppressed.

The Templars drew support from the people in power. Their whole philosophy is based upon a few rule the majority, so that everyone lives in peace with one leader. Therefor, most of their resources come from the rich and those in power.

Those are the only differences between the two organizations at the time. They both did the same things, they just got their resources from different areas.

If in reality, the Byzantines tried to get back Constantinople, I'd think they'd be more likely to ally themselves with the Russians. They have strong Orthodox roots and they have an effective military. Rather then ally themselves with people that by all public accounts, have a strong basis in Catholicism.

If in reality, the Templars wouldn't have been there at all in this time period. Their order was gone at this point in time, in reality.

And again, the Templars, as their own organization in this AC series, didn't give a damn about Catholicism. They only cared if it helped them in some way, that's why they were crusaders. They could create their own nation in Israel, under the banner of Catholicism. The Catholics get their Holy Land, and the Templars get their own slot of land to start their New World. That's it, that's all they cared about in terms of helping the Catholics. In AC 2 and Brotherhood, it was, again, about expanding influence. You got the majority of Europe under one religion, Catholicism, and they have a universal leader; the Pope. Stick a Templar in as the Pope, you got Templar control almost all throughout Europe, not to mention the Papal States.

And by the time of the events of AC Revelations, the Templar Order didn't exist in the public eye for about 200 years. The Pope, Clement V, ordered the annulment of the Order. So, for the people at the time, no one knew what the Templars were except the really big historians at the time. So public opinion is irrelevant.

The True Templar Order, just wanted to expand their influence. So they helped the Byzantines. Because the Templars had something to gain, and the Byzantines had something to gain.

I'm saying that people have a hard time separating the Historical from the fiction. It makes for inaccurate assumptions about certain details in history. I just think Ubisoft should tell people more that it is fiction loosely based on history, at least it would make my job a bit more easier.

Again, I'd hope people would learn that it's not historically accurate the moment you have ancient golden apples controlling people in Israel in the Middle Ages. I'd hope people would at least have some form of sense that that is not true. Also, isn't there a loading screen before the game starts that says that it's a work of fiction based on real life events. Unless your too lazy to read, that should come out and tell you it's fiction. Sorry if that sounded rude, but still.

[Haydn]

My answer to number 3:

In a way, yes but the majority will say no. Because if I recall, from certain movies on history some people start believing what events that occur in the film happened IRL. An example such as The Patriot, it shows British soldiers gathering civilians in a town, putting them into a church and setting it on fire. Now, the only actions like that were only done by the Nazis during World War II. It's things like these that annoy me but some people may disagree, but I'm okay with that.

[The rhomaio]

I'm just saying that they portrayed the Byzantines in a very cruel, and undeserving light. An Orthodox Priest trying to murder his own patriarch, portraying anyone who fights for the cause of Byzantium as evil, snooty, sadistic, cowardly, or brutish, all these things just seem disrespectful to the memory and accomplishments of Byzantium.

Ubisoft should be applauding them, and yet it seems as if they are dancing on their graves and portraying their oppressors as virtual saints.

Name one movie that's main character is Basil the Bulgar Slayer, name one movie that portrays Saint Cyril's conversion of the Slavs, name one movie that portrays the fall of Constantinople that is not tainted by Turkish nationalism. There are none, when the world remembers Byzantium it seems, it is in a negative and/or inaccurate light.

All I ask for is that for once people rise out of the stereotypical hole of mocking the Byzantines and make something good and true about them.

But at this rate, all there will be is lies and fiction.

[Sulania]

I'm just saying that they portrayed the Byzantines in a very cruel, and undeserving light. An Orthodox Priest trying to murder his own patriarch, portraying anyone who fights for the cause of Byzantium as evil, snooty, sadistic, cowardly, or brutish, all these things just seem disrespectful to the memory and accomplishments of Byzantium.

Ubisoft should be applauding them, and yet it seems as if they are dancing on their graves and portraying their oppressors as virtual saints.

Name one movie that's main character is Basil the Bulgar Slayer, name one movie that portrays Saint Cyril's conversion of the Slavs, name one movie that portrays the fall of Constantinople that is not tainted by Turkish nationalism. There are none, when the world remembers Byzantium it seems, it is in a negative and/or inaccurate light.

All I ask for is that for once people rise out of the stereotypical hole of mocking the Byzantines and make something good and true about them.

But at this rate, all there will be is lies and fiction.

Now, I can see your concern. And there are going to be people out there who think that AC is historically accurate, just like there are people out there who think that the Holocaust never happened. The thing is though, is that there are also people who know the facts, and it's our job to make sure the facts prevail in the matter.

You are right, there are people who are going to go off and only remember the things portrayed in movies. But most people generally don't think the Byzantines were cruel or evil in that way, or at least not anymore than any other empire at the time. As long as there are people, like you, that know the truth about it and are willing to tell other people said truth, then the Byzantine's true history and legacy can live on.

In short, there are people who are going to believe AC is accurate and all that. But there are also going to be people who know the facts. And as long as there are people that know the facts and are willing to tell other people the facts, then there'll be no issue in the matter.

[Conoga]

I'm just saying that they portrayed the Byzantines in a very cruel, and undeserving light. An Orthodox Priest trying to murder his own patriarch, portraying anyone who fights for the cause of Byzantium as evil, snooty, sadistic, cowardly, or brutish, all these things just seem disrespectful to the memory and accomplishments of Byzantium.

Ubisoft should be applauding them, and yet it seems as if they are dancing on their graves and portraying their oppressors as virtual saints.

Name one movie that's main character is Basil the Bulgar Slayer, name one movie that portrays Saint Cyril's conversion of the Slavs, name one movie that portrays the fall of Constantinople that is not tainted by Turkish nationalism. There are none, when the world remembers Byzantium it seems, it is in a negative and/or inaccurate light.

All I ask for is that for once people rise out of the stereotypical hole of mocking the Byzantines and make something good and true about them.

But at this rate, all there will be is lies and fiction.

"Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction was designed, developed and produced by a multicultural team of various religions, faiths and beliefs."

It is explained within a minute of starting the game.

[Sulania]

I'm just saying that they portrayed the Byzantines in a very cruel, and undeserving light. An Orthodox Priest trying to murder his own patriarch, portraying anyone who fights for the cause of Byzantium as evil, snooty, sadistic, cowardly, or brutish, all these things just seem disrespectful to the memory and accomplishments of Byzantium.

Ubisoft should be applauding them, and yet it seems as if they are dancing on their graves and portraying their oppressors as virtual saints.

Name one movie that's main character is Basil the Bulgar Slayer, name one movie that portrays Saint Cyril's conversion of the Slavs, name one movie that portrays the fall of Constantinople that is not tainted by Turkish nationalism. There are none, when the world remembers Byzantium it seems, it is in a negative and/or inaccurate light.

All I ask for is that for once people rise out of the stereotypical hole of mocking the Byzantines and make something good and true about them.

But at this rate, all there will be is lies and fiction.

"Inspired by historical events and characters, this work of fiction was designed, developed and produced by a multicultural team of various religions, faiths and beliefs."

It is explained within a minute of starting the game.

Thank you for validating what I said. They do say that at the beginning of the game.

[The rhomaio]

I'm just saying that they portrayed the Byzantines in a very cruel, and undeserving light. An Orthodox Priest trying to murder his own patriarch, portraying anyone who fights for the cause of Byzantium as evil, snooty, sadistic, cowardly, or brutish, all these things just seem disrespectful to the memory and accomplishments of Byzantium.

Ubisoft should be applauding them, and yet it seems as if they are dancing on their graves and portraying their oppressors as virtual saints.

Name one movie that's main character is Basil the Bulgar Slayer, name one movie that portrays Saint Cyril's conversion of the Slavs, name one movie that portrays the fall of Constantinople that is not tainted by Turkish nationalism. There are none, when the world remembers Byzantium it seems, it is in a negative and/or inaccurate light.

All I ask for is that for once people rise out of the stereotypical hole of mocking the Byzantines and make something good and true about them.

But at this rate, all there will be is lies and fiction.

Now, I can see your concern. And there are going to be people out there who think that AC is historically accurate, just like there are people out there who think that the Holocaust never happened. The thing is though, is that there are also people who know the facts, and it's our job to make sure the facts prevail in the matter.

You are right, there are people who are going to go off and only remember the things portrayed in movies. But most people generally don't think the Byzantines were cruel or evil in that way, or at least not anymore than any other empire at the time. As long as there are people, like you, that know the truth about it and are willing to tell other people said truth, then the Byzantine's true history and legacy can live on.

In short, there are people who are going to believe AC is accurate and all that. But there are also going to be people who know the facts. And as long as there are people that know the facts and are willing to tell other people the facts, then there'll be no issue in the matter.

......I seriously don't now any other way to respond to this other then to say, you honor me and them thought your words.