Great episode. David Andress prefectly summarized what's wrong in France nowadays, and the effects of Furet's work on historiography. Those days, you could hardly find anyone willing to defend the Revolution, left or right, while everyone and his mum feels entitled to explain it was terrible and should never have happened. While obviously cheering at Louis XIV or Napoleon's deeds. Instead of trying to understand what has happened, people are eager to categorize this event as good or bad.

Excellent video, it doubles as a short introduction to the French Revolution, a lot better than some others on KZread (looking at you Oversimplified).

Thanks for this. :-) I always love these videos. I know you've already did ac4 and ac:unity, but you should consider doing assassin creed 3 as well. That's one of my favorite games, and it leads to an interesting premise because its main protagonist is a mohawk indian fighting on the side of the American Revolution, as opposed to British like the rest of the iroquois confederacy. Learning about the plight of native americans within the role of the revolution would lead to a promising discussion! Also, I know I may be in the minority but I preferred the more "let's play" style of your first video. Asking questions about "how accurate/how false" in relation to the events/courses in the games is to me more engaging. But this is still your youtube series, and what a great one at that! You are literally my favorite youtube channel. Just keep on churning on your quality videos and watch the fans continue to pour in.

I just saw that this channel was featured on gamasutra. I hope that this will bring the subscriber numbers you definitely deserve for the awesome work that you do.

One of the great things about Assassins Creed 1 was that while it was set during the third crusade, it had little to do with the events of the crusades directly, rather it dealt with it's own story set within the context and politics of the Crusades. Al Mualim would speak of victories and movements of troops but what you dealt with in the game was was more about the effects of the war within the cities and on it's people. You never even saw Saladin once, even though his name was all over the game. That's how it should always be done.

These are pretty great, really loving them. If you ever get to RDR you should also think about covering LA Noire as well.

I really don't get why this channel doesn't have more views/subscribers. Really interesting video ! Makes actual sense of AC unity !

I think the basic mistake Ubisoft's writers made was in siding with the Girondists and monarchists. It shows an incredibly superficiality on the part of the writers, in terms of the relative complexity of historical understanding that the writers of earlier AC games achieved. As a result, we have the Assassins siding with aristocrats who were hopelessly corrupt, and with the Girondists who were likewise hopelessly corrupt and also naive. To anyone who has even the most basic understanding of the French Revolution, the decision the writers made is absurdly simplistic and reactionary - something that can't be said about the earlier games in the series.

@cg123ize

9 жыл бұрын

especially since the assassins were about freedom and progress say what you want about the anti british feeling in ac3 at least the assassin's in that game stood by there beliefs when they sided with the patriots

@cg123ize

9 жыл бұрын

that is true but this is caused by his native American upbringing which is way different than colonial society but I was pointing out that even with the whole brits are evil attitude and connor's naiveness he represented the assassins ideals of freedom better than the assassins in unity

@cg123ize

9 жыл бұрын

i suppose personally I am a fan of ac3 flaws aside but that's just me

@ArmandDupin

9 жыл бұрын

Ian Cooper Well, that's the first problem. The second is that every event is barely explained. Ubi managed to shove every important revolutionnary event (including le serment du jeu de paume) without giving any context. The revolution is just a background. It's barely tied to the game's plot.

@marcolam5341

8 жыл бұрын

+Ian Cooper When we first saw the trailers for Assassin's Creed: Unity, the game was advertised as though you would be taking the fight against the "tyranny" of the French monarchy, whole-heartedly in support of unchecked mob violence and slaughter. At that point, I was very afraid that Assassin's Creed, a series known for its theme of grey and gray morality, would simply generalize the royalists as evil and the revolutionaries good because hey, Assassins = freedom, so they must support the revolutionaries right? I will tell you that the stance that Ubisoft took in Unity was quite nuanced and not in any way simplistic. The entire theme of Assassin philosophy revolves around seeing a path beyond the black & white extremes that are given to us & to realize that there is light and darkness in any faction. The Assassins did exactly that in this portrayal of the French Revolution. 1) Honoré Mirabeau, the Assassin Mentor, was willing to colluded with the Templar Grand Master to start the French Revolution together. The Assassins in the plot of this story supported the French Revolution. 2) Mirabeau had secret correspondence with Louis XVI because he thought that this could help moderate the French Revolution. Rather than demonizing the monarchy, he tried to play to their human traits as a way to negotiate a more peaceful outcome. It is consistent with the Assassins' beliefs of understanding that no faction is pure good or evil & having faith in the humanity of others. 3) While Robespierre may very well have been unfairly demonized in his depiction here, alongside other notorious Jacobins, the Reign of Terror did occur, did it not? Should Ubisoft have shown the Assassins supporting this? NO. That would've been a horrible contradiction of every principle of the Assassins laid out in all previous games. Arno's message at the ending was very clear and remained consistent with that of his predecessors: Assassins believe in freedom, Assassins are liberal, but their creed is a warning of fanaticism & extremism, of painting every picture as black & white, of getting so carried away with your values that you become violent and hypocritical. This is the reason why the Ubisoft seems sympathetic to the monarchy in this game to some critics. These critics somehow can't see past the fact that the revolutionaries weren't purely virtuous and the royalists pure evil. Because the Assassins were opposed to the most violent factions of the revolution, suddenly they're entirely in support of the aristocracy? Stop thinking in extremes! The portrayal was very nuanced here. The Assassins AND Templars together started the French Revolution as a way of abolishing the aristocracy. The Assassin Mentor, however, did not seek the death of Louis XVI b/c he understood that Louis XVI isn't some pure evil tyrant, but an incompetent ruler that inherited an outdated system of oppression. That the Templar Grand Master was able to ally with the Assassins sent the message that not all Templars, despite being the antagonists, are evil. That the Assassin Pierre Bellec, in his loyalty to the Assassins, came to assassinate his mentor to "purge" the order, against presents the message that Assassins are corruptible as well, while contributing to this theme of the dangers of fanaticism & inability to see beyond labels. There were revolutionaries on the streets (Girondists, not royalists) who were allied with the Assassins. And there were revolutionaries that were akin to terrorists of today. Napoleon is initially shown as a friend of Arno's but is later revealed (in the DLC) to be just another selfish man after his own glory and power. The entire message of the game is that those that fail to see past labels are superficial & that no matter your ideals, be it Assassin or Templar, liberalism or conservatism, if you take these beliefs too far, you are susceptible to corruption. The subtle theme of anti-extremism present in all previous games (*cough* except Rogue) is the same. The reason why it only seems that Ubisoft took a counter-revolutionary stance here at first glance is laziness of presentation, as was the same case in Assassin's Creed III, where Connor learns at the very end that the Patriots did not respect the rights of all men, but you spend the majority of the time allied with them, to the point that it isn't immediately obvious that Ubisoft wasn't actually biased to one side.

Excellent video and for the looks of it, channel. Never seen this before! Fun and interesting idea for a channel. Congratulations. Subscribed!

You know watching your reviews of other games like Valiant Arts, Black Flag and now Unity (all by Ubisoft, a French compay), I am struck by how you mention the fact that the game whitewashes France's history, in neglecting the presence of the French Empire in the Caribbean, the French Colonial Soldiers in World War I and here putting forth a highly conservative interpretation of the founding moment of France and modern Europe. It's interesting that the games that do touch on the dark side of French colonialism - Liberation and Freedom Cry - are confined to side games (DLC and a PSVita-Belated Next-Gen Port). I am amazed that the game neglected to mention that during the Reign of Terror, France became the first Western power to outright abolish slavery, while presenting a highly romantic view of Napoleon (who brought slavery back). UNITY is so one-sided as to be propaganda and the main sources are ghoul chronicles like Simon Schama's woefully inaccurate CITIZENS and Abbe Barruel's books.

@HistoryRespawned

9 жыл бұрын

I agree Ubisoft games tend to gloss over some of the more controversial aspects of French history, but I still appreciate the fact that they produce these games at all. I can't imagine there are many gamers clamoring for a game about 18th-century slavery or WWI, but they made them anyway. I tend to be forgiving of any company that at least attempts a historical game rather than a company that doesn't even bother.

@sudarshanramani2140

9 жыл бұрын

History Respawned That's my feeling too about the earlier series, until UNITY, which goes out of its way to blatantly falsify and avoid the real history of the event. To me the game is royalist propaganda that makes Scarlet Pimpernel look fair in comparison.

@2Fiddle4U

4 жыл бұрын

@@sudarshanramani2140 The people who say "stop making games political" don't realize that, games already are, made by people who just as much a product of their times as the historical eras they depict. And their biases will bleed through, as people working at Ubisoft show their hand in regards to French history

another recommendation if you are also looking into indies. Banner Saga- turn based RPG with a vikings theme, fairly popular I think SEGA is releasing Total War: Attila in a few months too which is an interesting split from it's Rome Total War series. Would love to see a video on that

@HistoryRespawned

9 жыл бұрын

Banner Saga and TW Attila are definitely on my radar. My computer recently died, so I may have to wait for Attila, but Banner Saga is apparently coming to the PS4 soon.

New Subscriber. Great show!

If you read my reply to Ian Cooper, I confess I wrote it before I watched the video. I was brought over here by the description that this video, like some French politician in the news, heavily criticized the portrayal of the French Revolution in Assassin's Creed: Unity as right-wing and biased towards conservatism and even siding with the monarchy. This idea is preposterous to me for the Assassins has always been a very left-wing faction in the series, canonically being socialist while opposing authoritarianism, and I know some fans have even previously argued that the series was too politically liberal. If I just heard a critic denounce the game as royalist and counter-revolutionary, I would think that this critic only took a superficial glance at the video game and failed to deeply analyze many nuanced underlying elements of the game and of the series and of the protagonists, and as well lacks even a basic understanding of the prevailing political philosophy consistent throughout every game. However, after actually watching this video, I must admit that I am impressed. I do think that it was very much educational and David Andress's critical analysis isn't the least bit shallow. In particular, this following line is the highlight of the video for me: "And once you put a conspiracy theory at the heart of the revolution, you are essentially doomed to start to say things that sound counter-revolutionary because those two things have been together for the past two hundred and twenty years." I want to clarify that I would adamantly disagree with any notion that the game itself or the interpretation of the French Revolution behind this depiction of the Revolution is inherently counter-revolutionary (but I think that our definition of "counter-revolutionary" may perhaps differ & that may be the main point of contention). To say that the Assassins sided with the monarchy here is decisively incorrect. The Assassins were in support of the Revolution, having had a hand in its inception, but not the Reign of Terror nor its radicalization. I was moreover very glad and relieved that the Templars were not strictly the monarchy, and the Assassins the revolutionaries, or vice versa. But I understand what you mean that ultimately, the game took a stereotypical and clichéd view of Robespierre, demonizing him rather than showing how virtuous & well-meaning people tragically resorted to extreme measures and succumbed to hypocrisy as a result of the socio-economical factors involved & the political environment. I believe that this owes to the following factors: 1) "laziness." I think that realistically, there was no way this game could have included so much depth on the complex intertwining aspects of the Revolution. I do think they could have weaved a story that focused on the Revolution itself more, but I think if Robespierre and other individuals seemed demonized it owes more to time constraints than bias. They felt it necessary to simplify things. 2) Assassin's Creed III received sharp criticism for being too focused on events of the American Revolution that it seemed unrealistic that Connor could have been involved in so much of its critical moments. I personally don't think the socio-political-economic background of that revolution was explored in that game either, but for many fans, it was comical and ridiculous to see Connor ride on with Paul Revere in his famous ride.... on the same horse. I noticed that Ubisoft actually has a habit of making their games based on the surface of fan feedback without really putting their soul into it. I think they feel pressured to do what seems to be popular opinion, but fail to capitalize on it because they are too focused on what they think the fans want rather than making what they honestly desire for the game. (For example Connor who was hinted to be in Unity is absent possibly b/c of a vocal minority hatred of the character. There are many more examples but I'm going off on a tangent). So what I immediately inferred was that Ubisoft, in taking the feedback that AC3 focused "too heavily" on events of the American Revolution, decided to distance itself from the French Revolution itself in this game, relegating it to just background scenery. 3) Even IF Ubisoft did actually understand that architects of the Terror & Robespierre's villainy has been exaggerated in history, does most of its audience? Most adolescents and young adults would have only learned in school textbooks to view Robespierre as a monster and the Terror as the instrument of his and his allies' hypocrisy. There are already many fans starting to misinterpret the Assassins as terrorists & anarchists because they mistake freedom as the highest and sometimes even the only aspect of Assassin ideology, even though Assassin philosophy is one that preaches moderation. Had the Assassins only been revolutionaries or even sympathized with the most vocal of the revolutionaries, it would've decisively affirmed this misconception that Assassins are terrorists in the minds of many young fans who are losing faith in the series. A nuanced portrayal of Robespierre & the Terror would've been a very delicate project. As well, it would've disappointed other fans who disliked that AC3 seemed to have the Assassins & Templars strictly aligned to the colonists & British respectively. 4) Then of course, we could've had Robespierre and his allies not been aligned with the Assassins nor the Templars, or the French Revolution not a conspiracy. I think Ubisoft responded to that French politician's criticism that at the end of the day, this is meant to be art & entertainment, not a history lesson. I think it is a weak rebuttal, especially since earlier AC games were lauded for its depth in philosophy, standing alongside The Walking Dead for having the potential to really educate its players, but there is some honest truth in it. It is not pure history, there is fiction, and to weave it into the Assassin & Templar plot, it may have been necessary to make the Templars involved in some way. I think it is much more egregious case that WW2 in this series is canonically entirely a Templar plot, down to FDR and Hitler being secret allies. At least with the French Revolution, it was initially sparked by both the Assassins & the Templars together rather than as a pure Templar conspiracy, not all of the major players were aligned with the two shadow organizations, & it is implied that the socio-economic factors behind the Terror were very much real (it was only catalyzed by the Templars).

Hello Mr.Whitaker, I do not know if you ever read this but I have to say that I am a huge fan of your content. I really love what you are doing here and I really wish you had more subscribers. Most of your videos are pretty informative especially this one (Professor David Andress is fantastic). I have a very small request. Could you do a historical review of Assassin's Creed 2 & Assassin's Creed Brotherhood? Not only Ezio Auditore is the most loved and popular character among Assassin's Creed fans but the period of time he lives in (Renaissance) is pretty unique and not cliched like the one in Assassin's Creed Origins. If you ever decided to do it, I have a list of questions that I really appreciate if you asked your historian : Regarding Assassin's Creed 2 : 1. How historically accurate is Ezio outfit? Would a nobleman of that time wear something like that? 2. I really love to know (As do many other fans) how realistic Ezio story seems to historians. How historically accurate is the entire idea of a Gonfalioniere independently executing an up-jumped recently ennobled family (Auditore) aligned with Lorenzo de'Medici without Medici approval??? 3. How historically accurate is the portrayal of historical characters? Namely Leonardo da Vinci, Niccolò Machiavelli, Caterina Sforza, Bartolomeo d'Alviano, the Medici family, the Pazzi family, the Barbarigo family and Pope Alexander VI. Would it historically make sense for some of these historical characters to befriend with a humanist/populist killer like Ezio? 4. In your Assassin's Creed Unity video, David Andress went into great detail regarding how Paris of the 18th century really looked like (Higher buildings/Darker streets). Could you ask how Venice/Monteriggioni/Florence looked like back then? 5. Assassin's Creed 2 has a very interesting character called "Teodora Contanto" (She is called Sister Teodora in the game). She has very interesting beliefs. I was wondering if you could ask the historian about her. About the way she thinks/behaves. Did anyone during the Renaissance really think like that? (assassinscreed.fandom.com/wiki/Teodora_Contanto) is her wikipage. 6. How accurate is the portrayal of brothels and women in this game? 7. How common were street fights like the one you see in the beginning of the game? 8. How historically accurate is the portrayal of the Pazzi conspiracy? Why did they conspire? 9. Assassin's Creed 2 makes us believe that Agostino Barbarigo was better that Marco Barbarigo (the Doge Ezio publicly assassinated at the Carnevale). Is there any truth to this? 10. How historically accurate is the portrayal of Savonarola? Was he really as bad as the game makes him? Regarding Assassin's Creed Brotherhood : 1. The major running thread throughout Brotherhood, in its portrayal of Rome, both story and open-world design, is that the Borgia ran the city into the ground and impoverished it. We see this in the game throughout. The Borgia guards are rapists, murderers, thugs, gangsters. Economic investment and shops only open for purchase when Ezio burns down Borgia towers and the underlying metaphor is that Ezio and the Assassins brought the Renaissance magic to the city. How historically accurate is this? 2. Most important question. AC Brotherhood presents the downfall of the Borgia as a total good and Ezio's success as unvarnished. We see Ezio paving the way for Julius II. Ezio opposes Cesare for his militarism, his attempts to expand the Papal States and try and unify Italy, all of that would be continued and with greater gusto, and greater success, by Julius II. What was the difference between Rodrigo Borgia and Julius II in terms of policies? Sorry for all these questions. I really wish you read this comment. I look forward to your video. Ezio deserves the best historical review since he is pretty popular and unique (Ezio deserves a detailed video like Assassin's Creed Unity review not the one you did on Assassin's Creed Origins)

@HistoryRespawned

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment and the questions! I'm hoping to cover ACII at the very least this year for the game's 10th anniversary. I'll be sure to refer back to your questions when I do.

thanks for the show! i would love to play unity but with its numerous bugs and (from what i gather) lackluster experience i've decided to get my history fix from podcasts, i'm currently listening to Mike Duncan's podcast on the French Revolution and the older Napoleon Bonaparte podcast with J. Markham and Cameron Reilly. both of which i highly recommend btw. just wondering who everyone here thinks of the most when it comes to the whole of the revolution. for me it's Napoleon, for too many reasons to list here. followed closely by Robespierre, because any student of Cicero is bro tier.

@HistoryRespawned

9 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comment. I think this game is worth playing...eventually. It does some interesting things with the assassination missions, but otherwise doesn't really add a lot to the formula developed by ACIV. With that said, I enjoyed my time with the game, despite the problems.

Unity makes me completely sad and pissed off. French Revolution is my favorite time period and I've been waiting for a very long time for a French Revolution AC... and Ubisoft completely screwed it up. You'd expect an AC game to revolve around Those Who Came Before and the Artifacts, the modern Assassins and the historical story. This game had pretty much exclusively a historical story only (excuse the redundancy) and the cherry on the cake was that Arno was a completely dull and uninteresting character (but he got better in Dead Kings). And a historical story only AC game that lacks actual history, at least in the main campaign (y'know, the main thing about a historical game), it's very disappointed from Ubisoft, knowing they can do better. I understand this is a game and not a history lesson but it just fell flat for me. That said, gameplay was damn amazing, I loved the parkour and I rarely had any major glitches or bugs, so it wasn't such a terrible experience, but that doesn't make up for the story or lack thereof. Have you played Rogue? I loved it, it's a much better game and I'd like to know what you think about it. It's more balanced than Unity and the main character has an actual personality. And again, a great episode, can't wait for next!

@HistoryRespawned

9 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I was surprised by the lack of historical content in the main storyline. Most of it is in the intro videos for the multiplayer mode, which I don't imagine most players will play. The whole thing is so strange because this is French history! You'd think they would want to go over everything in exacting detail. The gameplay was good. I didn't run into too many glitches either, though I played it after the first major patch. I haven't played Rogue yet. I hope to get to it soon. It's one of the reasons I held on to my old consoles.

@cg123ize

9 жыл бұрын

don't forget lack of accents

@AndrejGobec

9 жыл бұрын

cg123ize People say it is way more immersive if you play it in french language with english subtitles.

@cg123ize

9 жыл бұрын

yea the only problem is you can't switch language during cutscenes between historical and modern part else i would do it

@theguyyoudontfuckingknow294

5 жыл бұрын

If they had made the in game Paris as an accurate 18th cetury version as was explained by the historian, the game would have been damn good and challenging even to simple move through the streets.

Will you post the PAX Panel on your channel?

The assassin is counter revolutionary in Unity? Weird. Almost like he is a Templar. Makes me want to play it more.

Hey, with the sound mixing, the game itself is a little too loud and the commentary is a little too low. It is distracting.

also wouldn't it be sweet for AC to go back to the late roman republic? it would give us a period free of christian politics by going back to a point before all that.

@toddcrane4318

8 жыл бұрын

Well Brutus was a Roman assassin as Julius Caesar was being influenced by the Templars in the AC Universe

I've got a bone to pick with this video. First off, the game was NOT a disaster - people just like to whine about Assassin's Creed any more is all and it felt like the narrator was trying to lead the historian into saying this sucked or that was shit, but kudos to the historian for not going down that road, and instead taking a considered and critical approach to looking at the game. I for one LOVED the counter-revolutionary perspective of the game. It was NOT expected at all. I figured it was going to be another cliched game about revolution and resistance where you just get swept up in the movement, but no, you play as a guy who's just going around trying to put out fires and pretty much ends up being on the losing side of history. And my second point of contention - this is FAR from the first game to cover any French history. I was actually going to leave Black Flag out of this, but since you mentioned it, there WAS a French veteran of Queen Anne's War in the game - Julien DuCasse. Aside from Black Flag though, there was SIGNIFICANT French presence in Freedom Cry (they were the ONLY empire depicted in that game and pretty much ran the slave trade in the region), Rogue (you start off with the Assassins on the French side of the French and Indian War before defecting to the Templars on the British side), Liberation (where you play as a mixed race woman with a freed slave for a mother and a French businessman for a father and who participates in the struggle between the French and Spanish empires for control of New Orleans among other objectives) and 3 (where near the end of the game you help General Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette summon the French military to help roll back the British during the American Revolution.) So yeah. No French history whatsoever.

A lot of the negative backlash and criticism of this game seems to be founded on a misapprehension, namely that it attempts to recount the French Revolution. It doesn't, it uses that as a setting, and weaves some threads into its narrative, but the main thrust of the story is a very straight forward revenge plot. It's not like this is a subtle thing either, at several points Arno is reprimanded for focusing on his own interests, and not the wider issue, and he himself questions the brotherhood about why they do not throw their weight behind a revolution that so closely seems to mirror that own ageless creed. The suggestion that is presents the whole revolution as equating to the Terror is also not correct. The game spans several years, and you see distinct phases of the social unrest during that time, from the early storming of the Bastille and vociferous crowds in the early stages, on to increasingly violent public executions toward the end, with clear shifts in the focus of activity throughout the city. Something that this game actually does very well is deconstruct our modern perception of the events, and recreate something closer to how it must have been perceived at the time. For the overwhelming majority of the events, and for the vast majority of the population, it was not "The French Revolution"; it was just the latest in what was by then a long succession of French revolutions. The game presents people at all levels fully expecting the events to curb, just as they had done in the past, and often paying dearly for that assumption. Unity presents that well through relatively small and isolated pockets of extreme mass unrest and violence, with the majority of people elsewhere just trying to continue their normal life as best they can.

It's clear neither have played the game. The player isn't thrown straight into the Reign of Terror. The first big event depicted is the Estates General of 1789, then the storming of the Bastille, and then a jump forward to 1791. The guys randomly stabbing people in the streets are meant to be agitators hired by the fictional Templars, so no real need for strict accuracy here. The game also has a built in encyclopedia for further information. As for how accurate the encyclopedia or the rest of the game is, I can't say for sure. I'm not an historian, and I know for sure this game is far from perfect. But I'm not sure how useful it is to show an historian snippets of gameplay without context, instead of letting them engage with all of the historical material the game has to offer.

You seem to be inferring that there was anything redeemable about the french revolution.

@basilofgoodwishes4138

Жыл бұрын

Human rights, democracy, liberty, free education and equality are all good and redeemable things, thye all originated with the revolution.

These two dudes need to relax. As the game producers said, it isn't a history lesson, it's just a game. People don't buy games like these to "learn" about history. We buy these games because they're fun to play, the fantast of time traveling, etc. By the way, nobody who plays the games even cares and will forget about the fictional story as soon as they finish the game.