Assassin's Creed | Was Achilles The REAL Villain? 

He isn't really a villain. He is an antagonist. These are very different.

"In your haste to save the world, boy, take care you don't destroy it." ~ Achilles to Connor After having played Rogue and seen Achilles' mistakes as the Mentor of the Colonial Brotherhood in that game, those words in AC3 are now more meaningful.

Connor was 13 in that memory??????? THAT KID KILLED LIKE 6 PEOPLE AND HE 13???

I feel with the situation with Shay defecting is both on Achilles and Shay. Achilles should have listened to Shay about Lisbon rather than dismiss him but also Shay should have explained what the artifact he saw looked like to make Achilles realize that it wasn't an Apple of Eden rather than immediately deciding to steal the book and run plus Achilles didn't know messing with the precursor artifacts are what caused the earthquakes.

Achillies was human prone to mistakes his flaws was not listening to Shay and i am sure thats why he didnt want to take in Connor as a Assassin given he made a mistake once. I think he worries he would make another mistake and repeat what happened with Shay.

In Rogue, I would say yes (but not to a great level), in AC3 I don't really think there is a 'villain' and this is honestly what I like about AC3's story, in that despite the Templars are the 'bad guys', Haytham's ideologies makes you really think about it and there's times I just had to agree with him

Great video! About the analogy with Star Wars, I always saw Achilles as master Yoda. He was Grand Master of the Jedi order, he was unable to see the fall of the order, he gave up and also he didn't want to train Luke in TESB, just like Achilles. In my opinion he is much closer to Yoda than Obi-Wan. But either way you can relate him to whoever you like. Keep up the good work! (Sorry for spoilers)

I always felt the whole story and the people involved (Achilles and Hathem, Conner and Shay) were all showing that neither side is bad, that both sides are good. One side fights for freedom, the other for peace. Both are noble goals. What makes one bad over the other is how far they will go, and how much of the other's goal they are willing to give up for their own. The assassin's become bad when they use terrorism (like in rogue with the gas) and the Templars when they use tyranny. Ultimately both exist so that the other doesn't take things too far unchallenged. Also the Obi Wan analogy was the perfect analogy. I knew it as soon as he said his name

Not just Achilles but the whole Colonial Brotherhood under him were consumed by this weird arrogance that no other brotherhood had. They believed they were better than everyone, and could do as they pleased. They even looked down on Shay like some peasant for some weird reason, despite obviously being incredibly talented. They used him like dumb muscle. Even that native american within their ranks treated Shay like garbage - you'd think he would understand what it's like to be treated that way most of all... Though, this was probably more a flaw in the writing to force you to feel alienated from them.

Great analysis, Achilles is only ever an antagonist or anti-villain at most, than a true villain. And after all that he really ascends into a truly wise mentor (loved the Obi-wan analogy). I feel there is this crucial scene in Rogue that most everyone forgets... when Adewale comes to visit Achilles and Shay listens in on that conversation, they mention the Haiti earthquake as a separate random event from their agent going into the temple to retrieve the artefact. Meaning they didn't know that's what caused the earthquake. Then, after Lisbon, when Shay went in all screaming and guns blazing and accused Achilles of causing all that death deliberately, Achilles simply refused to believe it because the idea he and the Assassins had been killing thousands was probably too much to handle at that point in his life given his own personal losses. Not to mention Achilles had just gathered supplies for Adewale to take to Haiti on a relief mission and suddenly he is the reason everyone died in Lisbon. So I think he just spiraled into denial until the very end of Rogue, when he finally admitted to Liam that Shay was right and refused to handle the artefact in the Arctic temple. Achilles also saved Shay's life when Liam went to shoot him. So all in all, by the time of AC3 Achilles was just a heap of guilt and self-loathing, he even told Connor he despised himself for never mustering the courage to kill himself. I think Shay was so traumatised by Lisbon that he didn't communicate well what he learned, and Achilles was not prepared to accept the tragedy he caused, so like you said that entire plot hinges on one massive misunderstanding.

I personally would find a Video interesting about the Optional Main Assasination in the Games(like Biddle in Ac 3)

7:59 i don't think Achilles failed with shay at least not in terms of making him an assassin and teaching him the creed because shay was the ONLY person during the events of rogue who actually didn't break the tenants of the creed

i see rogue as, Achilles didn't want to believe Shay, because Achilles sees the assassin's as the protectors of the people, and after hearing that instead they destroyed a city Achilles may of thought Shay was lying at first and was corrupted there and then

AC3's story and characters were absolutely legendary for the entire franchise! So glad it was my first Assassin's Creed

The Beauty of the Kenway Saga is it's subtlety, and only those most perceptive and attentive piece it all together. Its why i love the kenway saga, it all comes together when you play 3-unity. It all overlaps.

Wow, this video really got me thinking! The idea that Achilles could be the real villain in Assassin's Creed is mind-blowing. I've always seen him as a legendary hero, but this analysis makes some compelling points. The game's ability to challenge our perceptions of historical figures is truly remarkable. The way the narrative unfolds and the moral ambiguity surrounding Achilles' actions really adds depth to the story. Kudos to the creator for shedding light on this intriguing perspective. It's discussions like these that make the Assassin's Creed franchise so thought-provoking and engaging. Can't wait to see more content like this!

In rogue his actions were villainous If anything I don’t think hes fully villainous like the Borgias type of evil He was mostly blinded by his own delusion that he knew best and had he had listen to Shay then he wouldn’t have sided with the templars to save the assassins from his stupidity and ignorance But he did redeem himself somewhat in training Connor and took him as practically another son figure with how close they were for such a short time

To the Assassin's and Templar's it's more of a war of belief than a war between good and evil

ACIII is probably my favorite Assassin's Creed game. I always liked learning about that time period as a kid, but I think the thing that the game captures better than any other media about this time period is just how murky everything is in terms of morals. Yes, it's a good thing that the people in the colonies were able to free themselves from the oppression of the King, but those same people would go on to enslave an entire race of people and commit genocide against another. I think making the protagonist of the game a native was the right choice, because it unfortunately reflects the truth that so many native people fought alongside the colonists in pursuit of the promise of peace, only for their tribes to be betrayed and slaughtered by the very people they helped to gain independence. As for Achilles himself, the fact that he's a land-owning black man tells us a lot about his life that the game never does because of historical context. All the game needs to tell us is that he's a land-owning black man in colonial times and we can look in the history books to see how he has most likely been treated ever since he came to the colonies. I honestly think, when it comes to the characters of ACIII (and Rogue when they appear in that game) it's a disservice to refer to them as "Heroes" and "Villains" because it's story, like the history of the US, is a lot more complicated and nuanced than that.

Loved the SW comparison you made. Have you ever considered doing a full nlown video comparing the Colonial Brotherhood's downfall to that of the prequel era Jedi? Lots of comparisons of both Orders becoming more arrogant and screwing over a young pupil with so much potential to where they get manipulated into switching sides and kill those they once saw as family. Hell you could say Achilles is the AC version of Yoda being a stubborn yet traumatized old man who refuses to train him at first but gives in and eventually dies peacefully seeing Connor become a fully fledged Assassin akin to Yoda and Luke.

I want to believe that Achilles hoped to used the artifact in a attempt to bring his family back, not understanding the consequences.

I think shay actually saved the assassin's from becoming like the templars all he had to do was make the assassins start over and he was the one that said to spare achilleas.

These 2 games are the most emotionally of the series, I mean when you see Achilles mentor for Shay and then Connor it’s just crazy, first you have to destroy everything that have been built by Achilles only because of his stubbornness, then you rebuilt everything with Connor who do everything right, yeah Achilles got his redemption by training Connor but I thing above all when he was training Connor he was thinking about vengeance from Haytham first then about the creed. But man these two games are the best for me, they made me litteraly cry every time (Ezios 3 games excluded)

I couldn’t believe it when I realized he was named “Achilles” and he had a limp, which reminded me of the “Achilles’ Heel” thing. His weakness was being blinded by his extremism and pride, which resulted to his injury on his leg, a reminder of how he lost his creed due to his weaknesses. I like Achilles and Ratohnhaké:ton’s dynamic and felt so empty when Achilles passed away. Somehow the Davenport area felt something was missing despite the side quests and a bunch of people living there.

Achilles wasn’t a bad guy. He just made a lot of mistakes he was blinded by grief and his loyalty to the Assassins.

Some factions were worse than others. The Templars that Ezio faced in his lifetime were truly the scum of the earth. The one's in syndicate were just really a product of the times, but they weren't moral. Unity, also evil.

I'm playing through Rogue and feel the same. Its cool seeing areas from AC 3 before they became war torn; Connor is pretty much undoing what Shay did when he destroys many of The Templar bases. But the story baffles me a bit especially with how many different factions are at play, especially the gang strongholds. If I hadn't played AC3 first, I would think Achailles is a straight up evil villian despite the throw away line about his family. The assassin's straight up hold innocent natives hostage in this game and pretty much do vile stuff we've seen the Templar do in older games. Even though assassin's like Ezio hang out with hired mercenaries, thieves, and the like, he never had them straight up target innocent people like in Rogue. Personally I don't think there's a villian at all. I feel like the games were trying to paint the Templar vs assassin's conflict as grey, but feel like Rogue could have done better at it. We see Shay having doubts about what's right and wrong, but so far in the game I haven't seen the gray area from the Templar, though maybe AC3 is doing it kind of with Haythems pov.

7:34 the grave written "Connor Davenport" is not actually Rotomhakaeton but Achilles real son Connor's grave

Great video man, I'm not sure if there is a villain in rogue and maybe not in 3 either, I think ur analogy to the Trifecta of Obi,Ani,Luke and Achilles,Shay,Connor is actually pretty good, it sat with me till the end of the vid. It's almost like shay was the untapped potential that Achilles made an honest human mistake with and Connor was his retribution. Nice video tho I enjoy stuff like this, I know it's all theory but it's good stuff

I feel like the assassins through the 18th century lost what it meant to be an assassin. Not just Achillies. Achillies had his own personal traumas, but as seen in Unity, the Assassins globally weren't in the right headspace during that time. They were similar to what happened in Masyaf in AC1. They lost sight of safeguarding free will and protecting people and focused too much on being anti-templar and keeping first civ artifacts out of their hands. Their global network was also small while the world kept growing bigger. After the colonial assassins fell and other factions of that time also being shook up, everyone left around had to re-evaluate what it meant to be assassins and readjust themselves to the new world. Just like how Altair had to shift the Brotherhood's focus and methods in the codex. Meanwhile the Templars have remained consistent on their goal of attaining complete order and only view the assassin's as a nuisance. Their goal isn't to destroy the assassins, it was to take over. Which is why despite the repeated failed plans they would still be around. Because they focused on that larger goal, their ability to communicate to other branches was easier. They didn't have a fight for power unless someone became selfish. Everyone had their job and did it.

He was a radical just like Gamilat: the end justifies the means. But he admits that Shay was right. Just like Gamilat accepted his death as agreed with Bayek. And his role in reestablishing the assassins was vital.

The way I see it, there probably was a good reason for Achilles to become a master assassin and a mentor in the first place. He definitely didn't achieve that by killing his competition or doing something evil. I think that because Rogue is set in probably when the colonial assassins were the strongest and had many connections around the world, he just got too hasty and stopped caring about the basic rules of the brotherhood. The brutal isolation given to him by Shay/Haytham has given him many years to self reflect, and knowing that his days would soon come to an end, he used Connor to go back to who he was. A more of a caring mentor and a father figure.

It weird in AC 3 he looks like a hero a true master but in Rogue he just doesnt seem the same maybe in AC 3 he reflected on his actions and changed, a new man in AC 3 thats probably why he retired from the assassins too

Achilles didn't disband the brotherhood, after crippling Achilles there is a cutscene between shay and haytham, where haytam initiates the eradication of the brotherhood. If you read the lore you'll know that the templars executed every assassin and only 2 escaped ( Achilles was spared by the Templar because of shay and was allowed to live only if he retired from the assassins) and the other is bellec, the trainer of Arno in unity. In that boss fight he explains to Arno how he escaped the purge of the colonial brotherhood

The way I always see it was this. By assassins creed 4 the Templar’s evolved. The Borgia family had manipulated the order to self serve themselves and that just couldn’t fly anymore. They knew that to stay ahead of the assassins they had to play the assassins at there own game and work in the shadows. Making sure that governments are manipulated to their favour and they have the resources and manpower to stop the wrong people getting their hands on the ISU artifacts. The Assassins on the other hand did not evolve their ways. How often between 3 and Unity did we see assassins blindly killing Templars before allowing their enemies to be taken over by zealous lunatics. During Achilles reign he allowed grief to cloud his judgment and had essentially a cult of murderous lunatics running around in denial that they where the problem. In 3 he caused a whole war against the British army which only resulted in a nation that contradicted the whole creed. It’s not until we see them in Unity do we actually see a reasonable group of assassins that understands blindly killing Templars for no reason other than they are one leads to more issues than it solves

I've never been a huge fan of Achilles. He's not a badly written character, just a guy blinded by his position as mentor. He's at his lowest in Rogue of course, but he still wasn't great in AC3. The Templars tried multiple times to avoid war by using subtle means (Johnson buying native land, Pitcairn wanting to parley, etc), but Achilles made Connor believe they were irredeemibly evil, causing Connor to choose violence and escalate things. While the Templars are no saints, Haytham did try to connect with his son, and while I don't believe peace between the Brotherhood and Order would have been possible long-term, I do think Connor and Haytham could have made compromises for each other. But Achilles denies Connor that chance, and sets him on the path to kill his own father. After the Templars are gone, Connor has little left. His leg is badly messed up from the chase with Charles Lee, he had to kill his best friend, his people are forced to leave their territory, Juno tells him she just used him for her own needs... I think Achilles is partially responsible for Connor's misery. Had he not fueled Connor's hatred towards the Templars, and allowed Connor to negotiate with Haytham, things may not have ended so bleak. Connor essentially becomes another Achilles, a crippled man, living alone, haunted by doubt and sorrow. I can absolutely understand why Achilles did what he did, but what he did broke Connor.

Such a great video please more about ac3 or Connor and Achilles

I remember playing ac3 thinking Achilles didn't want connor to become an assassin because of trauma but after playing rogue, now i understand that Achilles isn't bad its just he puts pride into the assassins too much to the point where he starts to make decisions that made him bad but at the same time he's good inside

Hello MasterAssassin, great video as always! In my opinion, I think Achilles was a little misguided in Rogue and wanted to solely achieve what the creed ultimately desired and was too fixated in preventing the Templar's to get what they want instead of focusing on the bigger picture, which is something I think has impacted him with grief and regret in his older years as seen in AC3. By the way, I sent you an E-mail in your business address, care to check it out, please?

I know that the Rogue storyline likely wasn't conceived until after AC3 came out but it's a good explanation for why the Colonial Assassins were in disarray until Connor came along. But previous installments have shown that the Assassins are no better than the Templars and are not impervious to extremism.

If people understood the period of rogue to ac3 they would know achilles is the villian,haytham said it best ,"freedom is a invitation to chaos "

There are no hero’s or villains in this story. The point of 3 and rouge was to show that the only difference between the assassins and templars was the method of obtaining peace as hinted by both Lucy and the doctor from ac1

I love your videos keep it up G

I like how Shay still wasn’t a target for Achilles to direct Connor to kill. It really shows how much he still cares for Shay on some level-and towards Connor on some level too.

In Rogue, I see him as a man blinded by bitterness and ego who thought he was upholding the Creed. In AC3, I see a man redeemed for his past sins who died satisfied with what he did in the the very end of his life.

Alos i love how Achilis Projects Ratonhnhaké:ton with litterally Connor as his son, with his sons name.

I think Ezio at revelations is somewhat cold killer and villain too. Templars and assassins are not good or bad ,they are extremistic organisations for their reasons and benefit.

always loved that his hat had the hood beak thing

To be fair, Shay came in and started yelling right away. Achilles should have told him to step outside and come back when he's more level headed and likewise, Shay should have tried to come back and apologize for his outburst then calmly explain what happened. I did a rewrite of this game where Hope is the main antagonist. Her gang goes widely unnoticed by the brotherhood and attacks anyone who so much as sympathizes with the templars. This and a couple other circumstances cause Shay to defect to the templar order. Achilles would later on redeem himself by aiding Shay in taking out Hope's gang. Hope shoots him in the leg and Shay finally kills her.

Your analogy to Star Wars is not bad at all. It captures two things at heart: AC3 being a bad adaptation of Star Wars. And on a second hand catching the fact that old Obi-Wan is a manipulative asshole who just wants to see the empire and the Sith burn.

Just to put things into perspective: the Lisbon earthquake killed (in real life) between 60.000 to 100.000 people... absolutely brutal.

What I've always liked about Assassin's Creed, especially in the older games, is that it had philosophical questions that are dependent on the player to answer themselves. Whether or not you like assassins or templars, each order had their own share of questionable members. Haytham was hard to question if you really delved into his mindset. Shay a little questionable, but in his own right, he was correct. Achilles had his own problems, and his own ego, but when we got to AC 3, he does acknowledge the hubris of the assassin order. Not just his own, but the fact that the assassins begun to take a more indiscrete approach to everything in Rogue. Like the fortresses carrying their flags which destroys the purpose of the "We work in the darkness" part of their creed, which in the spirit of your Star Wars analogy, was similar to the Jedi in the prequels when they delved in politics and became some sort of private army than an independent order that was made to be peacemakers.

When you replay ac3 after rouge there is multiple times where Achilles warns Conner on the outcome of his actions. He was blinded by the goal of not letting templars control the world but at the cost of how many people and cities were destroyed when they took the apples or precursor boxes. After it all when he became alone and crippled and old he could see the outcomes of what he had caused even at the end of rouge somewhat realizing he made shay.

Yo the star wars reference blew my mind.

Never played Rogue. This clears up my confusion over deciding Connor as his name when he was saying he could pass as a Spaniard or Italian

Villain for me is shay and I really wanted connor to find him and end him back when the rogue was released.

Lowkey a Assassin’s Creed wit Achilles as the main character would be fire

Assassins creed is at its best when the line of "heroes" and "villians" is blurred. That is something I find the first 6 games did very well.

I am so happy, such a perfect arc, I am getting. I am starting to play AC3 with played Black Flag & Rouge before it. (even Rouge is more interesting because I played Unity before that)

Connor had such a good point in this game but achilles would shut his plan down thinking it wad pointless as he couldn't understand how connor wanted to defend his people, also unpopular opinion, haytham is one of my fsvourite ac characters

13 year old Connor is like Myke Tyson at his 14. The evil unstoppable devastating machine of killing

I am begging anyone to tell me which theme it is that plays at 1:40, I've been looking for it for 2 days. Also don't wanna leave a comment without giving props to the video, its great stuff!

Love your video amd keep up the great work

The only news about assassin's Creed currently is the NFTs. Ooof

IMO, by the time Shay returned from Lisbon, Achilles was still grieving the death of his son Connor. He became seclusive and reckless and irrational. So when Shay accused him of intentionally causing earthquakes, Achilles didn’t listen to him and heard him out, which was the biggest mistake he made and started the downfall of the assassins in the American Colonies.

After III's story I was kinda sad for Achilles because of how Connor treated him, but after playing Rogue I understood why Connor treated him this way, he was pure manipulator and overall bad person pretending to do good things

It feels like if we are going to the extremes Maxwell Roth is an evil assassin, Cesare Borgia is an evil Templar, Shay is a good templar, and Ezio is a good assassin

He was more obsessed and misguided than outright villainess. By the end of Rogue, he realized he was wrong and that’s why he was the broken man we found him as in 3.

hey can you please talk about metal gear solid series it's a great one please talk

AC 3 and Rogue are ment to show there is a lot more gray between the Assassins and Templars along with pros and cons of each idea while also showing us if both groups if they do understand humanity needs both to be the best verisons of themselves. Achilles was misguided by lost of his wife and son in Rogue and in AC 3 he drowning in his guilt over how failed everyone who relied on him so he choose to move forward with Connor Kenway rebuilding things slowly together.

i love your videos

honestly rogue is just a massive case of putting everyone out of character or turning what's a misunderstanding way out of line. shay does not have a reason to blame achiles the way he did because he was warned multiple times to be careful, and had shay tried to explain it again achiles likely would have listened. now had achiles actually sent shay on a suicide mission to suicide bomb lisbon, then shay would have a greater reason to distrust achiles and the setup is there. shay, a novice to adept assassin is sent to lisbon to retrieve a piece of eden, generally relegated to master assassins coupled with say lisbon is a major templar stronghold and BAM. shay patric cormac a novice is sent to infiltrate Lisbon and steal the peace of eden, unbeknown to him he was sent to be the spark to a bomb in Lisbon. as shay escapes the wreckage he notices that the ship he went in from is nowhere to be seen thus he must go to the port immediately and try to at the very least board the ship. the recipe to this is already set up, shay being sent alone without liam for some reason, him not being a master assassin yet as they keep touting. his return to the townstead he directly confronts achiles out of righteous rage, with achiles initially surprised but praises shay for a job well done, shay still confronts achiles about the innocents lost in which achiles retorts with a "so what, thousands of templars are dead, the world is safer with their extermination" with this shay has a shocked look on his face and storms off, with clear insight that he has to take away the manuscript from them. which he does, the scene is shay being confronted by achiles but instead of that stupid little scene where achiles while fully armed verbally confronts shay and fistfights him, achiles instead pulls a gun on him and orders shay to explain himself, shay throws the book at achiles, shoves him, grabs the book and books it or shay manages to dodge the first shot and immediately books it out the window and the chase sequence occurs, this time no cannonballs because why would achiles bomb his own home, and how would shay set everything up for it to happen without putting a giant "I am going to betray the creed guys" flag before night falls. he's confronted at the cliff and instead of shay threatening to walk off, he is immediately shot by achiles. this puts achiles as a man who believes that the ends justify the means and is focused purely on the war against the templars and not for the betterment of mankind's wisdom, people might hate him, but well he's not the first to take that belief and honestly wouldn't be the last. it is a very human notion if you include context of the modern world in other games because the templars legitimately are fucking over the world, so if anything we as the player knows that achiles isn't necessarily wrong, thousands of templars are dead and all it took was to kill a few innocents a case of "can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" hell ezio basically did the same thing as well, and nobody points it out so if anything we do have precedence of this type of shit happening. and if anyone asks how I would react in such and emotional state, I would psychologically excuse their actions because THEY ARE MY FAMILY. how many times have you excused your own family who you love and trust through your life, friends you worked with for bad shit thinking maybe there is more to it. the way shay reacted felt that he was already about to turn coat and was just looking for an excuse to actually do it.

The assassin’s became so desperate to ensure Templars did not reach the artifacts that they hired local gangs and mercenaries to control regions, with an iron fist almost. The story would have been interesting if Shay didn’t join the Templars and instead fought both Achilles’ brotherhood and the colonial Templars.

I‘ll ask here because I dont know where else to ask: AC revelations is crashing as soon as I enter the game session. As soon as I get to sequence 7 memory 3 after the memory corridor the game crashes. Does someone know what that is and how to fix it? Sorry for this random comment I want just help.

The worst thing about AC Rogue was no hood. The hood was just a marketing play on the cover, but it would like badass to have the hood hunting other assassin's.

I don't think Achillies manipulated Connor into killing Haythem. Like Haythem, who was loyal to the order, Achilles was only loyal to the creed. It was only Connor who thought maybe the Assassins and the Templars could join forces to achieve peace. Both Haythem and Achilles knew they could never join forces. So Connor literally only had two choices: either kill Haythem as an assassin or join the templars and be with his father. AC3 was the first game to show that the Assassins need not always be the good ones; rather, it was all a matter of perspective. But even at the end, with the demise of the Templar order, I think Haythem may have died in peace; after all, he is a man of principle and stood loyal to the order even when he found out his mentor betrayed him in several occasions. So when he got to be with Connor, he might understand why he could not convince him otherwise. It was evident in his last words. Maybe his only regret was that both of them were so far apart due to different ideologies that he could not have been a proper father. But he at least left his journal for his son.

i slightly disagree with Connor not becoming an assassin. He was led to Achilles by Juno,maybe could have traveled elsewhere to get his training.

Villain may be a bit strong. Achilles is an antagonist, definitely. However, to call him a villain would be to imply a degree of malice in his actions. His actions weren't malicious, merely ignorant and short-sighted. Now, looking at the story from the Templar perspective, he absolutely is a villain. But then again, so is every player character in the series from that viewpoint, minus Shay.

No one is all villain. He's got a purpose on why he did what he did.

If Achilles listened to shay the templars might’ve just fizzled out, at the start of rogue most of them were old sick and dying anyway. For that simple fact alone Achilles is the worst thing to happen to the assassin order

Okay, but if he didn't do what he did, then we wouldn't get Connor and the events of AC3. This means no US Revolution and eventually no bacon cheese burgers. Can you imagine a world without bacon cheese burgers??

Achiles actually should’ve had his own game

Just one word : I cried...

Rouge is a great story about arrogance and following blindly, the fact that none of the other assassins only listend to Achilles and not shay even being blinded by shays affiliation with templars. They never stopped and thought about what they did wrong for him to turn on them but just passed the blame on shay

He did told Shay to be careful, so AS Shay. Not sure who to blame.

Wait, Connor was 13 when he first arrived at Davenport? And no, Achilles wasn't a villain. He was blinded by grief and a touch of arrogance, and the American brotherhood suffered because of it. He failed, but did then pass on the torch. Honestly, it's TLJ Luke Skywalker done right.

He is the reason why the bortherhood was so crippled in the colonial era and gave the templars all the political advantages which still affected the assassin's through the modern day

Achillies aren't a bad person, he got carried away with his ego and authority to provide for the Assassin's trying to make no mistakes. Sending Shay to Lisbon, was a huge mistake, but he didn't know that such a tragic would happen as seen by the end of Rogue he took his lesson and left the precurser artifact be (failed due to Liam this time). Shay wanted peace and justice, he doesn't belong to the templars, but he grown into believing that Assassin's isn't really fighting for good only because of that one mistake of Achillies. When Connor took a part in his elder life, he passed his knowledge and skills with the experience he gained from his own mistake, leading to redemption of past decisions and missunderstandings. Therefore Achillies is not a villain but an ego type person, everyone makes mistakes but he never said "I was wrong" to the people he cared about. But onto Connor he learned those mistakes and trained Connor the right way, even though they weren't always agreed to some subjects and believs. Bt Achillies is not a villain, it's the templars and always had been templars for decades and centuries.

Sorry, but I still don't view Achilles in the wrong exactly; I mean, sure, maybe he should not have attacked Shay and given him a chance to stop what he was going to do, but I can understand why not believing Shay. After all, Shay didn't return to the Homestead warning of the dangers but yelled at Achilles and said that Achilles had the destruction happen on purpose. If I was in Achilles' position, I would not be so inclined to take Shay at his word then and there; I would send him to his room to calm down and hopefully get a better picture of what happened from a more relaxed head.

Frankly, I think he's villainous because he's obviously among the most fanatical Assassins in the series. He's one of those post-Ezio Era Assassins that just don't get what Altair and Ezio were all about and is more focused on killing or sabotaging Templars than doing anything constructive for the world, the prelude to the absolute cesspoll of uselessness that the Modern Assassins will become. Worse still is the fact that when Connor does bring up the possibility of making peace through his father, Achilles outright tells him to kill Haytham. It's quite obvious that, his humbling aside, he never quite let go of the idea that he's the moral bastion here. Connor's own stubborness and recklessness is more of a mirror of Achilles' shortcomings than his "redemption". Neither he nor Connor ever question if what they think is going on is the truth, or at least the whole of it. "What's TRUE and What IS (commonly believed/accepted) aren't always the same", after all, yet somehow the post-Altair/Ezio Assassins don't ever learn that lesson, despite their whole Creed revolving around questioning everything so you can make well-informed judgements and do what must be done. For Achilles and the French Brotherhood all the way to William Miles, it's all "Good Assassin vs. Evil Templar" in their mind, and if you don't agree you get the Hidden Blade.

Wait, it's been a while since I watched Rogue and I only watched it once, but I thought Achilles knew if the artifact was taken it would cause the earthquake. Or is that just my memory because of Shay's bias/misunderstanding? But if not, then they definitely should've focused on Achilles' emotional turmoil to clear up Achilles' character. If you view Achilles as the villain, that's fine because I like him being a villain in Rogue and redeeming himself in 3 with Connor. It shows that he made a mistake and that he truly didn't mean for the Earthquake to happen. I really like Connor, despite what half or most of the fandom may think of him, and I love how it's really connected with AC Unity. I honestly wish there was closure with Connor and Arno. I mean, Altair and Ezio got one. Arno + Connor didn't. Also Shay didn't either. In Rogue, they hinted that Shay would be coming for Connor, but so far nothing has come of it. And the fact Shay killed Arno's dad, I feel like a tie in between those 3 characters would be good. I also think Syndicate has some content Ubisoft could make out of with the upcoming AC Mirage.

Rogue will forever be my fav AC

AC Rogue never made sense to me. If the Templars are also trying to search for precursor artifacts, why would Shay join them?

Achilles was a blind mentor, plagued by personal issues and giving us too much wisdom in Rogue showed that he wasn't well prepared to be a mentor, however for me AC3 is his revenge, he saw in Connor the chance to get revenge on the Templars, not necessarily on Shay because he's in France at the time but it's still kind of revenge for him

“Villainous” is not an appropriate word in my opinion. It is true that during the story of Rogue he was overly committed to the race for artifacts against the Templars. He should have at least temporarily stepped down as leader to properly grieve for his wife and son. He should not have been so pig-headed with Shay. And he definitely should have wised up after learning that an Earthquake destroyed Lisbon right after the same thing happened in Haiti. To be fair to Achilles. He did wise up before making the same mistake at the end of rogue and you could see that he applied what he learned from those mistakes in III. Regardless, he was never malicious. I think “misguided” and “antagonistic” are much better descriptors

Ah Tabai would be angry if heard about the earth quakes in Haiti and Lisbon After all it was Ah Tabai who recruited Achilles and trained him

The entire point of the assassins creed franchise from the get-go is to at least showcase that what we initially think are villains really aren't, and that those we trust deeply can be the real villain of the story when all is said and done. Al-mualim seemed respectable, honorable, disciplined and a great leader for the assassins. The templars in the first game seemed to be the cause of all the miseries we face in that game. Except, of course, if you played the game, you would know the templars aren't trying to gain control for the sake of control. They do it in order to have peace between the muslims and christians. They do it so that common people no longer have to be sent to fight in petty feudal wars and useless crusades or jihads that serve the heads of state and nobody else. The templars are the enemy of the assassins strictly because their methodology differs, even though their goal is the same. The templars seek grand political actions, often at the cost of many lives, but do it for the greater good. The assassins focus on preventing those type of "means to an end" things from happening in order to focus more on individual lives and simply taking out evil people, one by one if they have to. Both groups have the same ideals, but different methods and values. So Altair is shown this revelation, and finds out the real reason why these templars had to be eliminated. For Al-Mualim's hunger for power. I think the writers at ubisoft (at this point in time, at least) were smart enough to keep up this general theme. Only in the ezio trilogy can we really say the templars were a bit cooky cutter villains, whose only real goal seemed to be power. (I absolutely adore the ezio trilogy, but that is one criticism I do have: the templars aren't very fleshed out.) Starting from AC3, however, the general theme got back on track. The templars supported the independence movement. They supported democracy, they supported an end to monarchic rule that had plagued the world for centuries. They simply did so in their own, utilitarian way, often with many casualties in the process. So what can we say about Achilles? We can say that he was a radical Assassin. He was deeply loyal, had been stricken with grief and likely blinded by it, and the increased weight on his shoulders with the responsibility for caring for the struggling brotherhood probably didn't help his mental state. So when Shay (who did not communicate very well and IMMEDIATELY went on the offensive, let's be very honest here) accuses him of sheer villainy and threatens to indeed destroy everything the brotherhood had fought for for centuries, Achilles' hand was forced. There was no real point where these two ever got to talk things through. So who is the villain here? It's not Achilles. The villain is the pride, the arrogance, the emotional instability that both of these men suffered through. It's the flaw of mankind, the lure and responsibility of power. Shay couldn't handle the emotional stress of what happened in Lisbon, Achilles couldn't handle the responsibility of Lisbon being fully on his end. Both of them didn't look inward to see how their struggle was caused by themselves and nobody else. At the end of the day, Shay is not a good person, he switches loyalty in an instant, kills former brothers and compatriots, and ruins everything the brotherhood had been fighting for, all for a personal grudge he held against Achilles. Maybe Achilles had to be taken down a notch, but this was not the way to do it. Perhaps best of all, Rogue showed how the brotherhood had grown rigid and hierarchical, and that it functions best as a covert group of small numbers with a strict moral code and an oath of secrecy, rather than a sizeable army under one leader who is prone to mistakes. Both achilles and Shay are victims of circumstance, if that is the case.

Achilles was misguided, and his hubris crippled him. In the end he redeemed himself,and trained Conner to stop corruption and true evil.

Just an upsetting fact is that the Lisbon earthquake was real and 70,000 died in the fallout

It’s the same dilemma as the Jedi order in the SW prequels… their own arrogance and self righteousness brought their downfall