12857 réponses à ce sujet

[phaonica]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Also, Landsmeet dynamics cannot function in an absolutist sense of a monarchy. If there is even a small semblance of election, then the King is by definition no longer the state, but the first servant of the state. Ferelden politics in general is not favorable to an absolutist monarchy.

I agree with you here. It seems like the Landsmeet system is the best argument against Fereldens having a king as country mentality. With that in mind, you'd think they'd be at least somewhat hesitant to risk the power that the Landsmeet affords them.

We need another screenshot. This one's kind of on-topic:
(from my version of how Loghain's fade nightmare might have gone)
He's wearing more clothes than in that last pic I posted, I promise.



edit: I even managed top, nice

Modifié par phaonica, 27 août 2010 - 05:08 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
But Ferelden is the country in "For King and Country". And some would argue that so is the king. So arguably the two battle cries you mentioned say the same thing.

This is not the case in the feudal era and definately not the case for Ferelden. Only Louis XIV could claim to say: "L'Etat, c'est moi / The state, it's me". The absolute monarchy era started in the 17th century or so. This would not have been a mantra of feudal monarchies.

Do you have in-game support for that?  In the HN origin, for example, if you question Bryce about sending troops south, he says that it would be a very bad thing not to when the king calls for them.

And what does this have to do with the idea that the king is the state?
The king calls and the nobility answers. Or they don't. It has nothing to do with the idea that the king is the state, otherwise the king orders and does not ask. And Bryce does not say that it's a bad idea simply because it would be against the king's call. It might be a bad idea to let the darkspawn reach highever, so the smart move is to fight them outside. In fact, a Ternir by definition is quasi-independent and I would be hardpressed to believe that Bryce thinks that Cailan is Ferelden.

Also, Landsmeet dynamics cannot function in an absolutist sense of a monarchy. If there is even a small semblance of election, then the King is by definition no longer the state, but the first servant of the state. Ferelden politics in general is not favorable to an absolutist monarchy.

And there is what Maric said. If he was taught by his mother that the king is the state, he wouldnt' tell Loghain that Ferelden is more important than he is.

You're adding words to what I said.  Nowhere did I say the king=state or that it was an absolutist monarchy (that rules out feudalism), but that the feudal lords owe the monarchy allegiance and support.

[Addai]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

KOP has the right of it. In Medieval time, the king really ruled at the behest of the nobility. "First amongst peers" sort of thing. Remember, nobles had their own armies, and basically, if a king tried pushing his weight around too much, he'd have alot of angry armies at his castle walls. And it happened quite a bit in medieval times. Kings were very careful not to push their weight around too much to where it would ****** the nobility off, especially in Medieval England.

Sending troops because Cailan asked was a practical move, both for darkspawn, as well as further securing status as loyalists to the Crown.

People you talk to in Ostagar such as the kennelmaster say you're all there at the king's service.

Again I note what Bryce says about the king's summons.  He says they must go at the king's behest, not just as a practical matter.  Eamon likewise stays out of it at the king's behest, he doesn't just march on his own even though that is his wish.

None of this means that nobles did not conspire against rulers, but in Ferelden as in medieval Europe, it was treason nonetheless.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 août 2010 - 05:25 .

[Addai]

Monica21 wrote...
Not that I supported it, but this idea of what a feudal monarchy really was can be used to argue against the idea that Loghain committed treason. He withdrew his troops because he had the right to do so and the desire to spare them. His commitment to Cailan could be withdrawn whenever he wanted to.

No, in fact it could not.  Where do you get this?  As teyrn he would have sworn an oath of fealty, to say nothing of being Cailan's closest military advisor.  As Cailan says, "you will remember who is king."

Loghain certainly has no such notions when he becomes regent.  He understands very well what is expected of the feudal lords, though he has usurped the power that Cailan had legitimately.

P.S. Keep in mind that even as Arl(essa) of Amaranthine, you can exercise the king's justice and in pretty absolute fashion.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 août 2010 - 05:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
You're adding words to what I said.  Nowhere did I say the king=state or that it was an absolutist monarchy (that rules out feudalism), but that the feudal lords owe the monarchy allegiance and support.

Because of this is:

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

phaonica wrote...
But Ferelden is the country in "For King and Country". And some would argue that so is the king. So arguably the two battle cries you mentioned say the same thing.

This is not the case in the feudal era and definately not the case for Ferelden. Only Louis XIV could claim to say: "L'Etat, c'est moi / The state, it's me". The absolute monarchy era started in the 17th century or so. This would not have been a mantra of feudal monarchies.

Do you have in-game support for that?  In the HN origin, for example, if you question Bryce about sending troops south, he says that it would be a very bad thing not to when the king calls for them.

Phaonica suggested that the king might be seen as the country. I argued that this was ot the case, and you asked for in-game support, so I assumed that this is what you were arguing for. Sorry if I misread.

Yes, feudal lords owe the monarch support. But not when the monarch is pushing them around, or doing something they completely disagreed with. As many pointed out, feudal lords very often did not support their kings, it was very ordinary. Add the fact that Loghain was a Teyrn and the 2nd most powerful man in Ferelden.

So while it could be interpretted that Loghain betrayed Cailan at Ostagar (a sentiment I completely disagree with). It can not be argued equally as well that he betrayed Ferelden, simply by betraying its king (his other actons are a different matter and subject to debate). That was my initial point.    

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 août 2010 - 05:41 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Again I note what Bryce says about the king's summons.  He says they must go at the king's behest, not just as a practical matter.  Eamon likewise stays out of it at the king's behest, he doesn't just march on his own even though that is his wish.

He never said that he had to go simply because the king told him so. A Teyrn is not bossed around in Ferelden.
The mere fact that the king has to ask the Teyrn for his army, shows that the king does not have authority over Highever's armies without the consent of its Teyrn. He might do so for banns, but not Teyrns.

Eamon stays out of it because he was poisoned more likely. Plus Cailan does not order Eamon not to come. Cailan simply doesn't want to bother waiting for him.   

[Costin_Razvan]

Yes, feudal lords owe the monarch support. But not when the monarch is pushing them around, or doing something they completely disagreed with. As many pointed out, feudal lords very often did not support their kings, it was very ordinary. Add the fact that Loghain was a Teyrn and the 2nd most powerful man in Ferelden.

Just to add my two cents. Fereldan is not a Country with a feudal system, ( the Landsmeet which elects the king and must be called to at least be heard on their opinion of matters of state proves this ).

So while it could be interpretted that Loghain betrayed Cailan at Ostagar (a sentiment I completely disagree with). It can not be argued equally as well that he betrayed Ferelden, simply by betraying its king (his other actons are a different matter and subject to debate). That was my initial point.

A general does not betray his king when he cannot save his king from his own foolishess and he certainly doesn't betray his country by doing so.

 P.S. Keep in mind that even as Arl(essa) of Amaranthine, you can exercise the king's justice and in pretty absolute fashion.

Keep in mind that the only reason you can do so is because you control most of the troops of Amaranthine. 

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 août 2010 - 05:58 .

[Super ._. Shepard]

only time i sparred loghain was for an achievement

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Yes, feudal lords owe the monarch support. But not when the monarch is pushing them around, or doing something they completely disagreed with. As many pointed out, feudal lords very often did not support their kings, it was very ordinary. Add the fact that Loghain was a Teyrn and the 2nd most powerful man in Ferelden.

Just to add my two cents. Fereldan is not a Country with a feudal system, ( the Landsmeet which elects the king and must be called to at least be heard on their opinion of matters of state proves this ).

That proves nothing.  Medieval England had a similar dynamic, whereby the nobles had certain sovereignty and rights, and yet they received their titles from the monarch and served at his pleasure.  You seem to have an erroneous idea of what feudalism means.  It is always a two-way street:  The obligation of the liege lord to his bannermen, the obligation of the bannermen to their lord.  Neither could be set aside at will.

 P.S. Keep in mind that even as Arl(essa) of Amaranthine, you can exercise the king's justice and in pretty absolute fashion.

Keep in mind that the only reason you can do so is because you control most of the troops of Amaranthine. 

That might be the basis of your power, but is not the basis of your legal right.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Just to add my two cents. Fereldan is not a Country with a feudal system, ( the Landsmeet which elects the king and must be called to at least be heard on their opinion of matters of state proves this ).
 

I disagree. First of all, the Landsmeet is called for important matters, and is not always in session like congress / senate / parliament. The Landsmeet is also made up of nobles only, each representing his Bannorn / Arling / Teyrnir, which is definately feudal (and proto-federal. Modern day federalism does borrow alot from feudal structures like this).
 
In addition, Gwaren and Highever are pretty much quasi-autonomous, which is definately feudal. But also Arls have a large say of what happens in their Arling.

Furthermore and this is very important, bannorns, Arlings and Teyrnirs are heavily if not almost exclusively associated with noble families. In other words, the king does not appoint governors on provinces, which means that it's not a pyramid structure with an overarching bureaucracy. This is essential in a feudal system, as Montesquieu argued. Hence why Louix XIV brilliantly decided to invite the nobles to live in Versaille. So they can be away from their lands while his bureaucracy that answered to him did all of the work. Taht's when France became a non-feudal / absolutist monarchy.    

So all things considered, Ferelden is most definately a feudal system.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 août 2010 - 06:24 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

He never said that he had to go simply because the king told him so. A Teyrn is not bossed around in Ferelden.
The mere fact that the king has to ask the Teyrn for his army, shows that the king does not have authority over Highever's armies without the consent of its Teyrn. He might do so for banns, but not Teyrns.

Yes, he does say that they have to go because not to go when the king calls for troops would be "a bad idea".  This is in the beginning conversation in the HN origin, if you say "isn't sending our troops south a bad idea?"  Not that the Couslands would not go anyway, but Bryce cites the king's summons as the reason they have to.

Eamon stays out of it because he was poisoned more likely. Plus Cailan does not order Eamon not to come. Cailan simply doesn't want to bother waiting for him.   

He had not yet been incapacitated when Duncan sees him.  Duncan tells Cailan that Eamon is offering his troops and it's clear that they aren't there because Cailan has told them not to come.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
That proves nothing.  Medieval England had a similar dynamic, whereby the nobles had certain sovereignty and rights, and yet they received their titles from the monarch and served at his pleasure.  You seem to have an erroneous idea of what feudalism means.  It is always a two-way street:  The obligation of the liege lord to his bannermen, the obligation of the bannermen to their lord.  Neither could be set aside at will.

No, Magna Carta was designed to severly restrict the Monarch, and while the nobility symbollically recieved their title from the king (similar to a blessing), it's not like the king could remove that title and give it to someone else simply because he wishes to do so.

No one is arguing that the king has no rights over the nobility. He does. But we are arguing that betraying the king does not necessarily mean a betrayal of the country under any circumstances. 
The initial comment which stirred this debate said that it was unthinkable to betray the king in a feudal system, which is not true.  

[Monica21]

Addai67 wrote...
Yes, he does say that they have to go because not to go when the king calls for troops would be "a bad idea".  This is in the beginning conversation in the HN origin, if you say "isn't sending our troops south a bad idea?"  Not that the Couslands would not go anyway, but Bryce cites the king's summons as the reason they have to.

Well, yes, but at that point he hasn't seen any battle nor has he been at any war council. He does what a vassal does and agrees to support him with military force. The "bad idea" is because if he doesn't go, he risks the King marching up to Highever with with Bannorn and Loghain's army. Definitely bad.

I'm not suggesting that Bryce Cousland would have supported Loghain's actions, only that he was ignorant of the situation.

He had not yet been incapacitated when Duncan sees him.  Duncan tells Cailan that Eamon is offering his troops and it's clear that they aren't there because Cailan has told them not to come.

Which is rather curious, considering his eagerness to invite Orlesian troops, isn't it?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Yes, he does say that they have to go because not to go when the king calls for troops would be "a bad idea".  This is in the beginning conversation in the HN origin, if you say "isn't sending our troops south a bad idea?"  Not that the Couslands would not go anyway, but Bryce cites the king's summons as the reason they have to.

I don't see him referring to the king's call so much as it being intrinsically good to follow. It's like saying "not following the teacher's advice in this matter would be a bad idea". It doesn't mean that it's bad because it's the teacher gave the advice. It might simply refer to this particular situation.

He does not say it's a bad idea because the king said they had to. He said it's a bad idea not to answer this specific call, because of possible consequences.
Maybe Bryce does feel a sense of duty towards the king. But that does not mean that he is going to do whatever the king tells him to. Not when it's made clear that the Couslands are keen to maintain their quasi-autonomy.  

He had not yet been incapacitated when Duncan sees him.  Duncan tells Cailan that Eamon is offering his troops and it's clear that they aren't there because Cailan has told them not to come.

There is no evidence to support this. Cailan does not say "I don't want them to come". He says "I don't want to wait".
 
And if indeed Cailan specifically ordered them not to come, then he is even more idiotic than I thought. But seeing how he requested Orlesians to come in, that wouldn't make sense on his part.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 août 2010 - 06:22 .

[Addai]

I honestly don't know why you're arguing this. It's still a monarchy, even if on the Germanic model rather than an autocratic one as say, Orlais. Listen to the bit in the HN origin. He says "when the king calls, it would be a distinctly bad idea not to go." It's clear to me, at least, that he's referring to the king's authority.

As for whether Cailan ordered Eamon to stay away, it's not clear. Duncan says "your uncle says his forces can be here in two weeks," Cailan says "Eamon just wants in on the glory." To me that sounds like Eamon is offering, but doesn't just mobilize on his own authority.

He is not the tyrant that Loghain becomes, but Cailan seems pretty comfortable ordering even his noblemen around. And no one but Loghain and Howe challenges his right to do so.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 août 2010 - 06:28 .

[CalJones]

He says "Eamon just wants in on the glory" which implies he doesn't want to wait (Duncan relays that Eamon says his troops can be there within a week). Odd, though, that the Cousland troops have come all the way from Highever, yet Eamon's troops can't be there for another week when he's closer to Ostagar and the king's uncle. Plot dynamics, I suppose.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

I honestly don't know why you're arguing this. It's still a monarchy, even if on the Germanic model rather than an autocratic one as say, Orlais. Listen to the bit in the HN origin. He says "when the king calls, it would be a distinctly bad idea not to go." It's clear to me, at least, that he's referring to the king's authority.

I think he said: "In fact, not answering the King's call would be a dinstinctly bad idea". Subtle, but meaningful difference, as it is referring to this specific call and not "when the king calls" in absolute.  

The mere fact that a Cousland nobleman can ask the Teyrn if it's a bad idea to do what the king says (in front of guests) and is not silenced by statements like "No it's unthinkable", or " no we must obey", pretty much shows that Bryce is sending his army and answering the king's call not because he thinks he should obey the king under any circumstance, but because he thinks it would be a bad idea not to in this specific case. For reasons such as: 
- might provoke a retaliation from the other nobles.
- fighting the darkspawn as a united front well away from Highever sounds better than fighting them alone.
- Assisting the king would strenthen their position. And if they didn't and the others won, would weaken it.  
So it would seem that he is motivated by what he thinks is best for Highever and his family, as much as what is best for the kingdom.

The king has authority but it's not arbitrary. I am arguing this because I do not believe that betraying a monarch necessarily has to, regardless of circumstances, mean betraying the kingdom / country. Would you consider the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to be a betrayal of England?

Addai67 wrote... 
As for whether Cailan ordered Eamon to stay away, it's not clear. Duncan says "your uncle says his forces can be here in two weeks," Cailan says "Eamon just wants in on the glory." To me that sounds like Eamon is offering, but doesn't just mobilize on his own authority.

Well naturally he wouldn't, just like an Arl can't just mobalise his army and march on Orlais on his own accord. It's a coordinated effort. 

Of course Cailan's stupid reply doesn't really tell us what he wanted. For me, it just seems like he didn't want to wait 2 full weeks for his glorious battle, rather than him specifically ordering Eamon not to come. 
 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 août 2010 - 06:41 .

[Costin_Razvan]

 

I disagree. First of all, the Landsmeet is called for important matters, and is not always in session like congress / senate / parliament. The Landsmeet is also made up of nobles only, each representing his Bannorn / Arling / Teyrnir, which is definately feudal (and proto-federal. Modern day federalism does borrow alot from feudal structures like this). In addition, Gwaren and Highever are pretty much quasi-autonomous, which is definately feudal. But also Arls have a large say of what happens in their Arling.
Furthermore and this is very important, bannorns, Arlings and Teyrnirs are heavily if not almost exclusively associated with noble families. In other words, the king does not appoint governors on provinces, which means that it's not a pyramid structure with an overarching bureaucracy. This is essential in a feudal system, as Montesquieu argued. Hence why Luoix XIV brilliantly decide to invite the nobles to live in Versaille. So they can be away from their lands while his bureaucracy that answered to him did all of the work.   
So all things considered, Ferelden is most definately a feudal system.

The Landsmeet is an annual event, which can be forced ( like Loghain and Eamon do ) but it is something that occurs every year and where all the nobility gathers. I won't deny that Fereldan certainly has some important parts of a feudal system but that it does not follow all the rules of a feudal system.
The fact the power of King comes from the Banns and that he must work to gain their support otherwise he might be removed from power. The fact the Landsmeet can decide to not crown a recognized an actual heir to a king that just recently died ( it is mentioned that Bryce could have become king if he wanted, but he threw in hi support behind Cailan ), and the fact that the Freeholders do not swear their allegiance to anyone, and can choose which can Bann to pay their taxes to in return for said Bann's military protection, all these facts go against the typical feudal system. 

Read mere here: http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Fereldan

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The Landsmeet is an annual event, which can be forced ( like Loghain and Eamon do ) but it is something that occurs every year and where all the nobility gathers. I won't deny that Fereldan certainly has some important parts of a feudal system but that it does not follow all the rules of a feudal system.

It was never forced. It was called. Not answering it is a bad idea, but Eamon never forced a landsmeet literally. Loghain could have ignored it. He just couldn't afford to.

Costin_Razvan wrote...
The fact the power of King comes from the Banns and that he must work to gain their support otherwise he might be removed from power. The fact the Landsmeet can decide to not crown a recognized an actual heir to a king that just recently died ( it is mentioned that Bryce could have become king if he wanted, but he threw in hi support behind Cailan ), and the fact that the Freeholders do not swear their allegiance to anyone, and can choose which can Bann to pay their taxes to in return for said Bann's military protection, all these facts go against the typical feudal system. 

This certainly does not imply a top-down monarchy. It simply means that the nobility in Ferelden has greater power than other feudal systems, and the monarch is weaker. But the basic premise that lords ruled the land that is granted to them by the king is still present, perhaps in an even stronger fashion (yes, we know that Calenhad granted Highever to the Couslands after defeating them in exchange for allegience). 

Of course debates still rage over what "feudalism" really is. Some have a definition that implied a top-down moanrchy (enlightenment philosophers saw it this way), while others don't (Alexis de Tocqueville would fit here). I am using it in the sense of reciprocal arrangement between the king and vassal and not in a top-down fashion, which I would qualify as absolutist.
 
EDIT: also, the election of a monarch is not an actual formality. We can put either Alsitair or Anora on the throne with no election at all and the Landsmeet does not say a thing. Its method for selecting King does not seem coherent.  

EDIT2: it's 10 Am here and I really need to sleep now. Talk to you guys later

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 août 2010 - 07:15 .

[Costin_Razvan]

This certainly does not imply a top-down monarchy. It simply means that the nobility in Ferelden has greater power than other feudal systems, and the monarch is weaker. But the basic preimise that lords ruled the land that is granted to them by the king, is still present, perhaps in an even stronger fashion.

Of course debates stil rage over what "feudalism" really is. Some have a definition that implied a top-down moanrchy, while others don't. I am using it in the sense of reciprocal arrangement between the king and vassal and not in the top-down sense, which I woudl qualify as absolutist.

Now that would obviously depend if the King is indeed the one who has the power to grant land ( there is no mention either way I think ) or not. Calenhad did not grand Highever to the Couslands, for the Couslands already controlled Highever.

Though, yes. I am one of those who supports Feudalism being considered for those states with a top-down monarchy. ( among the other conditions )

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 août 2010 - 10:45 .

[Monica21]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

This certainly does not imply a top-down monarchy. It simply means that the nobility in Ferelden has greater power than other feudal systems, and the monarch is weaker. But the basic preimise that lords ruled the land that is granted to them by the king, is still present, perhaps in an even stronger fashion.

Of course debates stil rage over what "feudalism" really is. Some have a definition that implied a top-down moanrchy, while others don't. I am using it in the sense of reciprocal arrangement between the king and vassal and not in the top-down sense, which I woudl qualify as absolutist.

Now that would obviously depend if the King is indeed the one who has the power to grant land ( there is no mention either way I think ) or not. Calenhad did not grand Highever to the Couslands, for the Couslands already controlled Highever.

Though, yes. I am one of those who supports Feudalism being considered for those states with a top-down monarchy. ( among the other conditions )

Well, they didn't control Highever because Calenhad had just defeated them. One of the questions the HN can ask Aldous is "and Calenhad let us keep Highever?" which presumes the he could do whatever he wanted with it, being that he was the conqueror. In this case, "granting" or "letting them keep" is just a case of semantics.

[Monica21]

Addai67 wrote...

I honestly don't know why you're arguing this. It's still a monarchy, even if on the Germanic model rather than an autocratic one as say, Orlais. Listen to the bit in the HN origin. He says "when the king calls, it would be a distinctly bad idea not to go." It's clear to me, at least, that he's referring to the king's authority.

I'm arguing for much the same reason KoP is. Maric made Loghain promise him that he would never consider one man to be more important than Ferelden. Loghain's perspective was that his king was threatening Ferelden by allowing Orlesian troops in. He has more than enough cause for worry, and is quite right that no one should be expecting the Orlesians to just go home happily once the darkspawn were defeated.

I think it's very likely that Loghain's actions saved Ferelden from another occupation.

As for whether Cailan ordered Eamon to stay away, it's not clear. Duncan says "your uncle says his forces can be here in two weeks," Cailan says "Eamon just wants in on the glory." To me that sounds like Eamon is offering, but doesn't just mobilize on his own authority.

True, and Arls don't mobilize on their own authority. Eamon was nearly as powerful as the two Teryns. If Eamon had troops that were ready and willing to march and could likely have been there before Highever's men, it seems odd they weren't there.

He is not the tyrant that Loghain becomes, but Cailan seems pretty comfortable ordering even his noblemen around. And no one but Loghain and Howe challenges his right to do so.

It can be disputed whether Loghain became a tyrant, and I would argue against it. Cailan being comfortable ordering noblemen around doesn't mean much, however, and Loghain challenges him for reasons I've already stated. Howe just tests which way the wind is blowing and latches on after the fact.

Modifié par Monica21, 27 août 2010 - 12:14 .

[nos_astra]

Monica21 wrote...
Maric made Loghain promise him that he would never consider one man to be more important than Ferelden.

The situation in which Maric asked him to promise this was quite different from the situation at Ostagar.
I doubt he meant to say: Loghain, if you'll ever happen to disagree with your liege lord feel free to do as you please.

[Monica21]

klarabella wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
Maric made Loghain promise him that he would never consider one man to be more important than Ferelden.

The situation in which Maric asked him to promise this was quite different from the situation at Ostagar.
I doubt he meant to say: Loghain, if you'll ever happen to disagree with your liege lord feel free to do as you please.

The situation actually was the same. Loghain would have had to fight through darkspawn troops to get to Cailan and rescue him, losing a large portion of his own force by doing so. He may not have even been able to make it to Cailan on time. That is essentially what Loghain did at West Hill, and the point where Maric made him promise. This was not a mere disagreement, this was "can I save him and if I can, is the cost worth it?"

[Addai]

Monica21 wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

I honestly don't know why you're arguing this. It's still a monarchy, even if on the Germanic model rather than an autocratic one as say, Orlais. Listen to the bit in the HN origin. He says "when the king calls, it would be a distinctly bad idea not to go." It's clear to me, at least, that he's referring to the king's authority.

I'm arguing for much the same reason KoP is. Maric made Loghain promise him that he would never consider one man to be more important than Ferelden. Loghain's perspective was that his king was threatening Ferelden by allowing Orlesian troops in. He has more than enough cause for worry, and is quite right that no one should be expecting the Orlesians to just go home happily once the darkspawn were defeated.

I think it's very likely that Loghain's actions saved Ferelden from another occupation.

We're not going to agree on that, which is fine, but just because Loghain arbitrarily decides it's time to take down the king does not give him the right to do so.  He is in the end only one nobleman, albeit a powerful one and with an army to back up his claim.  It's still treason.  There is also the fact that both Maric and Anora were open to overtures with Orlais, and Anora to accepting troops from them, so we're not dealing with "one man."