Talk:American Rite of the Templar Order

Moving page

If this page will survive extermination, I propose that we SHALL move this page to the main Templar page unless we will make other Templar branches... Is anybody with me? Before we proceed to voting, I must hear you opinions...

Cheers,

AgentG231 ^{The Action Center} 10:59, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Separate articles with what little info we got on 'em. Altaïr Skywalker 47 (talk) 11:03, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

If we had little info on this article, we must merge it as it is worthless to have a stand alone  page seperated from the mainstream page.. -- AgentG231 ^{The Action Center} 11:11, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to merge anything. The Colonial Rite is one of the few Templar factions to be clearly defined as an autonomous, nearly separate entity; it's just that the Assassins have more. --Jasca Ducato _{Council Chamber} ^{Assassination record} 11:14, September 20, 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think it's a good idea to keep pages like this open and on the wiki.  Also gives people a list of who was a Templar for Templar rites and/or Assassin brotherhood bracnhes.  It makes sense so why delete it? (M4 C-Corp (talk) 19:42, October 18, 2013 (UTC))

Colonial Rite v. Colonial Templars

The article is at "Colonial Rite" because that is what they are officially called; if the Colonial Assassins had an official designation, something like the "Brotherhood of the Colonies", that is where they would be. As it stands, the only reason Caribbean Templars is named a such, is because there is no evidence to suggest they were a self-sustaining Rite in the same aspect as Haytham's group.

EDIT: Likewise, the "Japanese Assassins" are listed as the Onmoraki-Gumi, since that particular branch has an "official" designation. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:08, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, Jasca. But when you consider that "Colonial Rite of the Templar Order" is essentially "Colonial Templars" in a longwinded form, wouldn't it just make sense to shorten it down for simplicity's sake? Slate Vesper (talk) 00:29, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

What does simplicity have to do with it? "Colonial Templars" is a redirect, so there is no reason not to have the article under it's proper name. For simplicity's sake I would argue we can shorten the Ezio Auditore da Firenze articl... --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:12, February 4, 2014 (UTC)

James Wardrop, Samuel Smith and Lawrence Washington aren't Colonial Templars

I think we can't technically consider Wardrop, Smith and Washington Colonial Templars, because they died years before the Colonial Rite was founded by Haytham Kenway. They can be considered agents of the British Rite.

Lorenzo.ladogana (talk) 00:36, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

I was just coming here to point out the very same thing... I totally agree; from what the letters say they were apart of Birch's rite and died before Haytham officially founded the Colonial Rite. Lord Vespasian (talk) 15:57, December 8, 2014 (UTC)

American Rite 1782

Did Shay really establish the American Rite in 1782, or was that just something that someone threw in that the editors missed? Its there in the intro paragraph at the start of the page, in case anyone else misses it.71.168.172.30 06:47, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Slate added that particular sentence, though I must confess that I'm not sure why he has done so. Beyond Shay's ending monologue in Rogue (which actually took place in 1776) where he declares himself a member of the "American Rite", there is nothing to suggest Shay actually set up any such group. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:56, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Considering the memory's date being 1776, I'm now torn on what to think. On the one hand, the American Colonies had just gone into their own Revolutionary War, and yet there were Templars around up until the end of it. On the other had, Shay was one of the most notable Templars, didn't die (so we know of), and expressed his desire to reforge the Colonial Rite into something different. What to do? Slate Vesper (talk) 11:35, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

Well it makes sense that since the Revolutionary War is to seperate the English Colonies from England, technically, that makes them newfounded Americans. With this, both the Colonial Templars and Assassins aren't Colonial anymore, but shifted into the American Branch/Rite.  Like Connor would no longer consider the Order here Colonial, but American since the country is its own power now, and he's been fighting to help with the seperation too. Haytham wanted to see the seperation as well. What did Shay do after the war is unknown. Hell, I'm surprised he didn't hunt Connor after 1776 being the Assassin Hunter and all that.71.168.172.30 19:30, August 9, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should remove this particular detail so that we can't mislead anyone. I mean there is no evidence to support this, just like we don't know the true fate of Shay or Connor. Especially since speculation is not allowed in here like you guys keep saying. If course, if anyone can, perhaps we can ask one of the devs and see if Shay ever does revive the Order in America? Mr.DarkBlade (talk) 06:02, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the information in question; I'm more than happy for it to be re-added at a later date, however, when we have confirmation (or not, as the case may be). ---Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:32, August 14, 2015 (UTC)

I know I’m a little late to this discussion. I was wondering the same thing, only I don’t think Shay started the American Rite. I think the name changed from Colonial to American due to the fact that the Colonies changed into the United States of America. So Haytham and Charles Lee would be the known Grand Masters of the American Rite.

I don’t know why the Templars wouldn’t change their name, even the Assassins, as they both wanted the colonies to be free and independent. Why wouldn’t they change their names to reflect the fact that they succeeded?  Once America was independent, there were no more colonies for the Templars, and Assassins to be colonial.

I think we should make an American Rite of the Templar Order and American Brotherhood of Assassins, since AC Rogue said there was an American Rite and it is newer than AC 3. Maybe they forgot to mention the change in AC 3. It is strange that AC 3 was all about the colonies becoming America, but the organizations don’t become American. Was an American Rite or American Brotherhood mentioned in Forsaken?Hugues de Payens (talk) 15:49, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

That all sounds rather speculative, Hugues. As far as I know, the "American Rite" is mentioned a grand total of one time, by Shay. At a time when the American Revolution was still going on to boot. So no, I think that, at most, we should mention this "American Rite" in the trivia of this article, and leave it at that. Anything else would be speculation on our part, since I don't think there's any reference to an "American Brotherhood". Crook ^{The Constantine District} 15:54, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the War for Independence was still going on doesn’t really matter. If you look at when the colonies became the independent it was in 1776. The colonies became America during the war, they didn’t wait until after the war. Town criers in AC 3 can be heard saying the colonies were now called the United States of America.  Historically, it makes sense they changed their name. Shay’s comment could be retconning.  Hugues de Payens (talk) 18:33, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

Other Colonial Templars

I was wondering if information about the district Templars from AC III should be added. Or is there too little information on them?

I was also wondering about the Finnegans' son. We know he was a Templar, but again there isn't a lot of information on him.Hugues de Payens (talk) 02:06, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

To answer your first point: if they're named then there should be an article for each individual, if not then there's no point in adding them to the list. Regarding Finnegan's son; he was a Templar, yes, but not of the Colonial Rite (since he lived and died before its founding), so he wouldn't belong on this article either way. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:12, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Didn't the Finnegans' son die in 1756? The Colonial Rite was formed in 1754. That means he died two years after the founding of the Colonial Rite.

As for the district Templars, couldn't we add pages for them? I noticed that the Key to the Grand Temple had a non conan name. We could name them, for example, North Boston Templar who terrorized neighborhoods or West New York Templar who spread smallpox. I think we should instead of ignoring their existance.Hugues de Payens (talk) 15:25, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

The Grand Temple key is a significant artifact that has a history - the articles you're proposing would have very little practical use, since they'd also contain very little information. I really don't think we need to create articles for them :/ Crook ^{The Constantine District} 15:33, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Well couldn't we just add information on them on the Colonial Rite page instead of making their own pages?Sort of like how the Finnegans' pages mentions their son without an actual page for him.Hugues de Payens (talk) 17:10, December 7, 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that seems reasonable. Crook ^{The Constantine District} 17:32, December 7, 2015 (UTC)