Charles Lee must have been shocked when years later the Native American kid he choked appeared in those Assassin robes mercing entire platoons with just a tomahawk.
In defense of Starrik. He was the only one of these templars already sitting in top of the world, basically controlling the world’s mightiest city. The Assassins had been crushed and he didn’t believe any one would stand up to him. Making him develop his stupid arrogance. I would put Cesare as more stupid than either him or Lee.
The Frye twins did take down his Templars in a short timeframe so he didn’t have the luxury of time to plug the gaps in his organisation or adapt to their sudden attack on his power base the way figures like Robert de Sable did to anticipate Altaïr’s presence and plan accordingly.
What happend to starrick he underrastiment the twins imagine! He the biggest boss of the templar and control london! And the only ppl that goes against him is jacob a stupid assassin i love jacob but the truth is the truth and evie a young girl so that what happen starrick was like " oh they aint gonna do shit they would lose " but wend they kill his cousin is what make him realized that the twins were kicking ass! But it was already late he should of deal with the twins sonner not after they defeated the blighthers.
In my opinion, Cesare as first with Starrick as a very close second. Cesare is the dumbest for me because he's supposed to be the big bad of AC Brotherhood and Machiavelli really hyped him up. He could have been the calculating and intellectual leader who is also a very fine warrior but in the end, he kept on making rash decisions that resulted in his own downfall. In fact, I'm pretty sure Ezio never really considered him a threat as a singular person.
I completely agree. Cesare rushed to decisions to whatever he thought would give him the advantage. He didn't think twice about any of the actions he made and he thought he could pummel the Assassins thinking that no significant action would be taken from them. Due to all this happening, this is why Rodrigo told him that he needed to take responsibility for his actions to which, of course, Cesare would put blame on his father instead of taking the responsibility himself. Even though Starrick was pretty stupid, I feel like he was just meant to be dumb, and while the same could be said for Cesare, he only became powerful because of his father and rode on his father's money and power. At least Starrick had some smarts to build up the rail industry handed to him which is something Cesare couldn't do. In a nutshell, Starrick gained and exhausted resources whilst Cesare only really exhausted resources gaining only a fraction of what he exhausted.
Exactly. An excellent soldier but a very poor politician. His ‘power moves’ on the extreme off-chance it did work wouldnt net as many profits as he thinks
He killed his father believing himself to be invincible, then never realised his father being pope was the only reason he had any power in the first place
And in history Cesare was an evil conniving genius loved and feared by all of Italy He wouldn’t have acted rash with all his scheming He would definitely have not loss the people’s favor to a Firenza hoodlum
He was greatest Templar not greatest Assassin. Comparing Templar to Assassin is like comparing blade to flesh. Templars live, Assassins make them die. He was probably greatest being Templar, maybe even better than Evie, but not better at assassinations.
Points for Robert’s intelligence 1) He uses Altaïr’s body count to rally two opposing forces in order to take Masyaf. This fails because he didn’t get to King Richard or Saladin in time, but props for using the Templar losses to his advantage. 2) He anticipates Altaïr being at the funeral of one of his former targets to try ambush him, and sending in Maria as a body double as well. Sure he underestimated Altaïr’s renewed understanding of the Creed, but again he used his enemy’s past actions to make an almost effective plan against him.
I don't know about the others, but I'd definitely say that Rodrigo is certainly not the dumbed. Sure, he does a lot of pointlessly evil things in his quest for power, but in Brotherhood, he was smart enough to not want to antagonize Ezio. He lost, got his ass beat, Ezio was merciful enough to let him live, and he realised he should count himself lucky and focus the templars elsewhere.
Knew from the start Haytham wouldn't be the dumbest. Legitimately one of the most intelligent, charming, and well articulated character in the series. In the way Ezio represented the best aspects of the Assassin's, Haytham represented the best parts of the Templars. If they'd met, things may have ended differently, honestly.
@@markzilla6895 What makes it worse is that in the book, Haytham did see through Lee at first. He noticed him trying way too hard to impress him and then giving everyone at the docks a dirty look when they first met. That ultimately led to his downfall as he didn't want the admit all those years in trusting Lee was a mistake.
He seems to not 100% on Templar code, and wants to distance himself from European order. Why does he provoke Connor anyway? As far as I know Connor is his only (and even if he is not, clearly his most competent) child. He could just steer Connor to be his heir and personal operator. Connor only has beef with Lee, Haytham could easily dismiss such a man as he clearly outlived his usefulness. This way him and his son they could have made a new inner establishment among both sides. There will always be a Templar order and Assassin Brotherhood. At least both could be manipulated by same dynasty, your family. Keep that in mind, most members of both organisations don't care about the ideals. Most templars just seek for trade partners, allies in politics, information etc. And most assassins are either anti-authoritarian reactionary rebels, or murderous criminals who are after some quick cash. Who cares about world ending prophecies, prophets and Isu etc.
Not even grandmasters of the Brotherhood cares. Late Altair cared only about peace of his people and well being of his family, Ezio didn't cared until his 40s, and only cared after because he had no other option. Connor again is after revenge and well being of his people. Arno is there for Elise, Jacob and Evie was born into it, Bayek was there for revenge, rest was there for money. Do you see a pattern here? They change, of course, but they change because of the templar threat. And only few madmen who want to control the world that causes all the middlemen to die. And nobody (in his right mind) went to the brotherhood, studied the creed, believed it with all his mind and heart and became an Assassin. I see a pattern here.
That would be a fun conversation to hear. Doesn’t Haytham have a particular distaste for the Assassins though? I mean the only reason he and Connor had any kind of dialogue is because they are related, and even then Haytham put Connors life on the line on multiple occasions because of the Assassins
It's wild to think that if Charles Lee never did go to that forest and casually beat up a random native american child, we would have never gotten one of the most memeable lines in the franchise, that being of course GIVE ME LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
A cool video idea would An video on each assassin swapping places in each games and how the story’s would changes an example: if Conner was the main character of unity. You explain how you think Conner would do against the Templars at that time if you think he would do better or worse then Arno and how he would react to the assassin’s Edit: thank you for the likes and the nice comments 😀
I asked him something similar to this in a video a while ago, a what if Connor fought Rodrigo or Ezio fought Charles Lee. He thought it was a good idea so maybe what you and I are thinking is in the pipeline 😁
You know what I just realized, Crawford Starrick is like most of the FC6 side villains, you don't have much interaction with him until the very end where he 'needs' to die, at least with the previous templars you as an assassin still interact with them quite frequently, and that kinda added on to the poor writing of him. At times it feels that the hero/villain trait of AC is going the polar opposite of that in FC, where like you said with Starrick being cartoonish evil and just wanted to control London
I don't think it's necessarily bad writing. Starrick is at the top of the world. It makes sense that he would be arrogant and complacent, laying back and doing whatever he pleases
I think the big defense for Crawford is that he was leader in the one city that was never supposed to fall, it feels in a way like, “well he’s not the best Templar, but he is loyal, put him in the backlines”
Charles Lee choosing to not kill Connor when he had him on his knees at Haytham's funeral was dumb. Gotta love how the antagonist has a chance to kill the protagonist and yet he or she wants to make them suffer first or just chooses to walk away and turn a blind eye while the henchmen make the kill instead.
Imo i feel like Shay was just so lost and confused. Most the time he didn't even believe in the Templar code either. His whole conflicting feelings about who's right just makes rogues story for me feel all over the place a bit
Watching this gave me an interesting idea for a video versus series. What if you took a Templar leader from one period and pitted them against an Assassin from another. For example, taking Rodrigo Borgia and putting him in charge of the Victorian England Templars to go up against Jacob and Evie Frye, and discuss how it would unfold. That would make for some interesting what if scenarios.
Shay vs Literally any assassin would be quite interesting. If anything, I expect that instead of him killing the assassin, he either makes them a Templar or becomes an Assassin again.
Feel like that would be hard to do depending what the boundaries are. Is he still the pope or is it just him without that power in the position of Crawfish?
I mean... Haytham allowing himself to get killed by his own son was kind of dumb, but on the other hand I kind of get the point that he technically had no choice.
The thing about Haytham is that he was too old and tired to keep fighting, and didn't really believed in Templars anymore. Plus, he didn't want to kill Connor, his own son. The goal for him there was to secure the future of Templars in Frontier by giving Lee enough time to escape. Which he did, but not for long.
Cesare being dumb is so ahistorical. The Prince is not just written about him, but it's written mostly because Macchivelli wanted to show how even a truly impressive statesman could fuck up.
For me Torres was the most meh templar. He wasn't so developped. He was just present in the begening and desappeared until a middle game mission then desappeared again to appear in the last ones.
Dumbest Templar Was Edward James Kenway Because he became Assassin and dumbest Assassin was Shay Patrick Cormac because he became Templar. Change my mind.
The irony in Syndicate is that, while Starrick is the main villain, all the other secondary villains are better villains and smarter than he is. Maxwell Roth is like a better version of Starrick, way more intimidating and charismatic.
I don´t think that Starrick can be called the dumbest templar, because he managed to get this big and important city London completely under his control. The whole infrastructure and the gangs of London were completely in his hands and that is something a dumb person can not achieve. Based on what we see in Syndicate he can be called dumb, but with this background of his control of London I don´t think he is a better choice for "dumbest templar" than Lee or Cesare.
This one was such a fun video! Very tough choice for the dumbest of templars indeed. I was almost sure you would pick either Cesare or Lee, but even if I never played Syndicate, I understand Starrick is a prime candidate in this category as well. Well played!
I haven't played all of the games, but Garnier de Naplouse always struck me as the most redeemable (sub) villain of all the ones I have seen. He uses brutal methods, but he genuinely believes that he is doing good by reforming sick people into soldiers, giving beggars a chance for a better life. When Altair debates him he almost persuades Altair that he was actually doing good. If Robert de Sable is one of the dumbest, then I think Garnier was one of the most intelligent.
Charles Lee was such a bizarre character. When we first meet him he's an earnest and well mannered person but the next time we see him he's a power hungry Sociopath. What the hell happened to him because he is the only ACIII templar tmwho had a dramatic personality shift. The others were exactly the same at the start of the game and later in the game.
Technically not a templar but the spartan king in Oddysey takes the gold medal for me, he reveals himself to you and instead of executing you or something he just lefts you at the border of the city so you can come back and kill him, he also doesnt try to hyde but goes to his own house.
Ok i have to disagree on the first one. "He was too weak trying to control only one city" Yeah, LONDON. The most powerful capital of the most powerful empire at the time. (And im french). You control London, you control the world.
Not to mention he kept the Assassins scared out of London except for Henry Green until Jacob and Evie defied their elders and went in with only Henry as support.
I was sure Charles Lee would win. Between choking a Native American boy who would grow up to hunt him down and his final mission where he has Connor beat, then gives him a whole “You lost” monologue just to let a severely injured Connor shoot him(when he could’ve finished Connor off or walked away). Charles Lee literally has a single digit IQ.
In my opinion one of the dumbest templats we saw in the games was minsieur de la serre in unity. He had arno living with him for years and could have made him believe the assassins killed his dad making arno one of the best assassin hunters the order would have known but chose not to introduce arno to the conflict at all
To be fair, De Laserre was for the most part a moderate Templar who remained diplomatic concerning the Assassins. De Laserre and Mirabeau were responsible for the truce between the Parisian Assassins and Templars. The reason they died was because the more radical/fanatic elements of their orders needed them gone. If Francois De Laserre were truly invested in Arno as a Templar he would’ve done more to pull him into the Templar Order than to send his daughter. But it was clear that his desire to make Arno a Templar was a fleeting intention and not a true portent of indoctrination. Arguably, I believe this is more a verification of good character than indictment of a bad Templar. In the end he had been right, the fanatic elements of the Templar Order almost destroyed it-as well as their enemies.
@@00martoneniris86 true but a small fire arm (or should I say Fire Wrist) on your wrist isnt gonna save you from a flintlock that is just entirely better
I would honestly say Cesare is the dumbest. Starrick's way of establishing his reign requires a tad bit of thought honestly. Starrick was basically a businessman. He had control over gang leaders, almost every manufacturer in London, omnibuses, trains, electronic communication, medicines. This guy had carefully placed his own men and women in control of these things. With the amount of thought it takes to do that, I would consider Cesare to be more dumb. Starrick although is a goofy villain and his motives make no sense. But Cesare was in command of armies, and he was widely popular. But based on Cesare's actions throughout the game, he acted with haste, and planned without much forethought. Starrick may have been insane, but he was way more methodical than Cesare or Charles Lee.
Caesare's attack on Monteriggioni was a masterstroke that netted him the Apple, killed Mario, and crippled Ezio. Caesare screwed up everything only *after* that. Starrick deserves more credit for creating the economic-scientific-criminal machine he sat at the center of. Like Caesare, he was slow to adapt to changing circumstances, but he had a strong set-up. Charles Lee was dumbest. His cruelty served no purpose and just made him enemies. He didn't create a machine, but was merely a loyal cog in one. His only real sign of intelligence was that Haythem believed in him.
Let’s be honest here the fact that Germaine wasn’t dumber or crazier is actually a testimony to him. Dude was a sage of axton the fact he wasn’t coco is already commendable as axton by that point already lead about 10 known sages of himself into pure insanity
In my opinion if we were counting the templars origins and we could choose multiple it would be every templar that chose to kill bayek and amunets son had they not done so their plans might have gone unnoticed
most influential support character/assassin best friend. without leo, ezio wouldn't have been as successful as he was. without achilles, more wise in his older years, connor wouldn't have had the training/knowledge, bayek had aya, evie and jacob had henry, etc.
I don't really know if being dumb is the right term. I think it is a cross between not fully understanding the risks of being a Templar and made an illusion they are untouchable. In this case, untouchable is not literal, the way I was using it I meant that they overestimating themselves (the Templar), and underestimating their opponent (the Brotherhood). This is not in all cases though. A great example of this is Shay. He is an exception to this rule because he knew what the Assassins were capable of before attacking. On a side-note It has been quite some time since I have played AC Rogue, so don't quote me on the attacking part. I do remember that he didn't attack first in the first mission when he was punched by his boss (and in another mission which I forgot the name of).
Cesera was dumb, but theres a good argument Ezio was even dumber. If he,d taken the advice of a certain character in assasins creed 2 and not allowed Rodrigo to live.....chances are, Bhood wouldnt have happened. Then when it does happen said character reminds Ezio of this fact.
Haythem was definitely the smartest Templar as he wasn’t easily influenced by others or at the attempt of power or riches he obviously had power and money but he was set in completing his objectives and goals himself whereas other Templar’s simply used others to complete their goals like Crawford Starrick Chesare Borgia and the AC4 Templar’s
If I recall the timeline properly, Rodrigo has the longest tenure between the playable Assassin beginning their quest to tear you down, and it actually being done, heck it took 2 games for it to be done, which should probably count for something.
for me, cesare is the dumbest due to his ambition for rule the world and he thought that he couldnt be killed by any one, also he thought that kill mario and messed with ezio was a good idea but in truth was not, we can see in ac 2 when ezio brothers and father publically execution which not only enraged him but let him went on full revenge + anger mode. we can also see this when sofia kidnapped and yusuf killed which made him angry like in ac 2 and brother hood.
he probably thought that if he did then that would make Ezio reckless since emotions can cloud judgment, then at the moment one of the expendables would kill him
@@aaron75fy assuming that it may be true but lets think on this: on ac 2, not only ezio got in rage for wanting revenge for his family but also he is very calm due to his uncle and others assassin fellow guidance. so in other words, like if any soldier of cesare can able to kill him but ezio skills were unmatched, to the end killing ezio while he is enrage and his skills are not compared so its a no go for them.
@@thanhlongvo7092 he still got caught before he could do anything though, if the army he brought to the invasion was more competent we wouldn't have a game
@@aaron75fy dont you remember that each main character in each time line can face and destroy whole army at once? same thing with ezio, and also at the time cesare just want to taunt ezio and command the sniper only to shoot him but not kill him off.
I would put Lee in place of Starrick. Starrick did manage to basicly own London and keep it for many years while the Assassins were hopeless. You could argue that his subordinates were the reason for this, but he was still smart enough control every aspect of society through them.
Hey so probably not the greatest idea but I was wondering if you could do like, ranking the hideouts? Ya know cause there’s quite a few like homestead, masayf or however you spell it, the ac unity hideout, and even include rogues? I can’t remember if he actually ended up with a hide out but… nonetheless im sure you can make it work. Thanks!
That's a good idea actually. I personally like Unity's hideout the most. The Cafe was awesome with all of the rooms, and it feels so good to renovate and fill with mementos.
Charles Lee. A bully and a psychopath. When being apprenticed by Haytham, he appears to be humble and respectful at first, but it's clear later that it's only a ruse. As soon as Haytham is away, he basically antagonizes everyone and everything he comes across, leading to the downfall of the Templars in North America. While Haytham was cool, thoughtful and calculating, Lee was brutal, reckless and impulsive.
Haytham is one of the smartest characters in general, but dumb move of him to choke his son out who also happens to have hidden blades on his arms lmao
He did it on purpossed so that connor could kill him. Why do you think he left and entrusted his journal for connor so that he could read and understand his life journey?
first of all, amazing video and i see why you say starrick is the dumbest but i personally wouldnt put him completly att the bottom because his plans i think were pretty grand with him slowly taking over England as the dominant world power at the time, while yes he was a cartoonish villain his goals and ways to get his goals were just that grand i'd say
3:45 Replaying AC4 it is heavily implied Torres knows Edward is bullshitting himself as Walpole. He strings Edward along to be an errand boy until the night he tries breaking the sage out of captivity.
I realize your reasoning for not including characters from the last 3 games, but Origins/Odyssey/Valhalla are still part of the series & I'd like to see videos that include characters from those games anyway. Bayek is usually included as an assassin, so why not include the order of ancients or cultists of Kosmos? Again, I know they aren't technically templars, but you could expand the video series to be "villains".
I get your point but the order of ancients and templars are two completely different organisations. King Alfred from Valhalla reformed the order of ancients into the knight templars who fight for a more righteous and noble cause. The order of ancients just wanted power and control over the masses.
I wouldn't want them included in any of these videos. I love Assassin's Creed Odyssey but it IS NOT an Assassin's Creed game. Neither is Valhalla. The only arguable one IMO is Origins, but even that I don't want included. It's too different and far removed.
Honestly, the historical Cesare was immensely intelligent, with his only downfall being trusting a new pope after his father died of malaria (yes, that's what killed Alexander VI: malaria). Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood did him an immense disservice with how he was written as reckless.
To give balance, Shay didn’t exactly frame his perspective to Achilles in the best way. He used inexact, emotional language rather than articulating how the goal of the mission was the direct cause of the earthquake. The Templars know how to pull his strings, leaving him with an Irish family to recover who just happen to have a son who went off fighting a cause and who needed protection, something they knew he’d be sympathetic to. It doesn’t help that the Assassins aren’t presented to be sympathetic to begin with or at least after Lisbon, but that could be Shay’s later Templar aligned mindset influencing his earlier memories.
As much as I love Brotherhood, between Cesare, Juan Borgia, and the Baron it sometimes felt like I was dealing with a panto! The regular costume changes didn't help.
I think the dumbest are Cesare (for obvious reasons) and Elise's father (for even thinking France's situation could be resolved through the manipulation and negotiation of a weak and corrupt aristocracy alone).
I’d have said the dumbest is Charles Lee. He did very little if anything to benefit the Templars agenda or goals, and was essentially a bulldog in human clothing. Starrick I would rank next to Lee because even though he was the grandmaster of the English Templar Order at the time, he came off as more of a gang leader than a leader of a religious, enlightened order (which tbh fits the game he was in since it’s Victorian London and you’re mostly fighting mobsters). He craved personal power above all else and it’s a shock that the Templars didn’t kill him themselves for putting himself over the order. Cesare Borgia I would’ve ranked as the bronze medalist. Yes he’s fecking bonkers like Starrick is, but for the most part Cesare has control over his madness, only losing that control during Brotherhood when his life as Italy’s favoured son starts to unravel and his sordid affair with his sister is made public. I even doubt he was a true templar as he never enacts thier goals or agenda the same way his father did, and just uses his armies to take what he wants when he wants by force. That said, because he controlled himself better than Starrick (who would shoot a henchman just for interrupting him with important news), and as such he held onto the reigns of power for much longer. Now in terms of the best Templars, I’d have said Rodrigo Borgia sits at the top for the fact he never sought power for his own sake, but purely for furthering the influence of the order. Yes the personal power he had as the pope was nice but it was never the endgame. As pope the ammount of things the Templars could do was vastly expanded, not just in Italy but the whole of Europe, who all respected or were wary of the Papacy. Haytham Kenway is the silver medalist for me as while he’s nowhere near a master manipulator like Rodrigo Borgia was, he was still highly intelligent and capable, and like Borgia, never sought out personal power for his own gain, and in fact pursued greater influence for the Templars with an even greater determination than Rodrigo did. He was also more open minded than Rodrigo, who I imagine would’ve scoffed at the idea of letting assassins join the order under any means. The bronze medal I’m not sure who I’d really give it to to be honest. I would’ve said Al Mualim, but he was a Templar Traitor who 100% prioritised personal power over the order, with the only “good” thing he did was somehow masquerading as the Assasins Grandmaster for many years.
Hard disagree about Cesare's attack on Monteriggioni being stupid. The complete opposite in fact. Ezio and the Assassins were inevitably going to be a threat to the Borgias no matter what. The only logical move to make was a preemptive strike. Which DID almost go off perfectly. They killed the Assassin Grandmaster, destroyed their base of operations, captured a valuable artifact, took hostages, and wounded Ezio. The last part was the only failure of the attack, since if they'd succeeded in killing him they would have won control of Italy.
Shay was definitely dumb. He entered his confrontation with Achilles hot headed as can be when it must have taken him days if not weeks to get back to the homestead and bring his concerns in a convincing manner. He could've convinced Achilles. He could've convinced his old comrades. He didn't try
I respect the list, but I don't agree with the conclusion. Starrick to run the templars and all of London business ventures takes brains and power He was written to be a cartoonist character, but I think it was fitting for the story To run a gang like the blighters and templars takes Fear and intimidation
I do note you’ve only done historical Templars, nothing from the modern day. Vidic, Daniel Cross (he’s got more background in the comics), Otso Berg, Alan Rikkin, they’re Templars too.
I'm pretty sure Germaine wasn't a templar. Sure he led the Templar order later on but he sure didn't believe in their beliefs. He just wanted to be reunited with Juno like all sages before him.
I'm not disagreeing with your choice at the end of the video I just personally always thought that Syndicate's villain was cracked in the head to begin with.
Shay is my favorite Templar I’m saying this, because not only is he a powerful assassin, but the guy himself has my strong morality and moral code, and I make some a powerful openent want to be feared, and respected by a Assassins and Templars
Do you talk slow or do you slow down to sound clearer? If it's the latter, there's like, 5% of excess. Fun video but now I just wanna know who's the smartest.
Please, the dumbest is Vieri de Pazzi, He's got a long (dumb) Dispute with Ezio when He already Knew, that his dad is an assassin. Why put yourself on target first? Prove me wrong
I know he is not a templar, but in their lineage i would nominate Aefred the (not so) great from AC Valhalla. He destroyed all of the knowledge about the first civilisation that the order of the ancients gathered over literally milennia, setting the soon to be founded templars back to square one.
I disagree about Ahmet. He made serious blunders at the end of the road resulting in his death, but he was the mastermind pulling strings completely undetected by anyone until he revealed himself. Almost all the other villains you know who they are the whole game
Ahmet’s goal may be limited mostly because he was concerning himself with the Ottoman succession crisis, but it’s a simple goal with big payout. If he did win, he would have access to the most powerful empire in Europe and the Middle East at the time. That said, can’t say he is smart with choosing his allies to accomplish this goal. Instead of picking allies within the Ottoman military and government, he chose the Byzantine restoration movement and Shahkulu. The Byzantine Rite of Templars had as their goal to restore the Byzantine Empire and kick the Ottomans out of Constantinople, which is a far-fetched goal for them. Shahkulu was an anti-Ottoman Turk who vowed revenge against the Ottomans, as seen from his interaction with the Ottoman agents in Cappadocia. This anti-Ottoman hidden agenda is bound to cause trouble for Ahmet, the favored Ottoman prince at the time. Ahmet kept on jumping between furthering his claims as heir and causing chaos to further the cause of the anti-Ottoman agenda in his organization. This led to the Turkish Assassins, now under the mentorship of Ezio who had turned the oppressed people of Rome against Borgia rule, to now become the defenders of not just the downtrodden suffering under Byzantine thugs but also made convenient allies with the Ottomans. The latter was seen with how Suleiman (son of Selim, who was contending with Ahmet as heir) is giving the Assassins access to the intrigues of the Ottoman palace, including allowing them now to intervene in the Ottoman succession crisis against Ahmet’s schemes. The Janissary’s disrespect for Ahmet showed how he failed to garner the support of the Ottoman Empire’s most powerful institutions. Instead of placing their own men in power like what the others Templars do, the Byzantine Templars are actively trying to destroy the government institutions that they could have manipulated to form their new world order. Italian Templars tried to put the Pazzis in Florence, Borgia in Rome, and their own Doge of Venice by usurping power from the previous masters of these cities. Colonial Templars tried to put their own man Charles Lee as a replacement to Washington in the Continental Army. Parisian Templar under Germain had their own puppet in Robespierre. In the Caribbeans, Rogers and Torres held power for the Templars in both Jamaica and Cuba respectively, acting as representatives to the great empires that ruled there. Even Starrick was head of a business empire that held a strong grip on London. But other than Ahmet who has a personal reason to preserve and manipulate the Ottoman court to do Templar’s bidding, most of the Byzantine Templars are actively trying to destroy the Ottoman Empire under illusions of grandeur of Byzantine restoration. Ahmet could have been their puppet in the Ottoman throne to allow the Templars access to the recourses of one of the most powerful empire at the time, but they chose the hard path. And they still suck at that job. They literally paraded around wearing Byzantine uniforms which logically made them not only easy targets of the Assassins, but also that of the Ottomans who had no love for the Assassins but wanted to stamp out any separatist movement. Instead of using Ottoman harsh treatment of populace as way to bring back Byzantine nostalgia as weapon against the Ottomans, they oppress the people as much as the Ottoman soldiers do, earning them no love. And Ahmet can do nothing about it despite claiming to be the chief mastermind. His plan hinges upon whatever he could find in the Masyaf Library, which is rather useless when he was unable to find anymore of the Masyaf keys except for the one he recovered from Topkapi Palace.
Starrick wasn't stupid, just arrogant. In his mind the templars already won, they were in control of the heart of the world and the Frye twins as nothing more than pests. Starrick was a business man and pragmatist so he didn't retaliate at first because he was controlling the economy of London, something you don't just throw away to confront two young assassins. It was only at the end when he realized how big of a threat the twins were that he became desperate.
I agree on Starrick being the dumbest of the lot. Cesare Borgia was an idiot as well, but what propels Starrick even further is the Final battle sequence. Whereas he went to collect a piece of Eden, one of the most important artifacts for the templar order, and he went in, unarmed. If he had so much as a small knife, he could have easily killed both the Frye twins right then and there, but he didn't. Instead he just chokes them, allowing the other twin to stop him.
Should do a video on who has the most battle iq for explain who would you want in a war they are all assassins they all have skill in this obviously but who has the most battle iq but in opinion I think it would be bayek off the fact the made most of assassin ways and trained them "ending of origins" but also could be Altair off he's feats and experience alone and maybe ezio I think it could be those 3
Bro Cesare is more of the Bowser Jr, and Rodrigo is more of the Bowser who kidnaps princess Peach, and Lucrezia is more of Wendy Bowser, well actually she kidnaps the princess this time and Ezio is more of Mario than Mario Auditore, Mario Auditore is more of Luigi so that's my little Crossover right there