501 réponses à ce sujet

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...

When the people are absorbed and do not have autonomous self-rule, they no longer remain like they were. All those who have sold their nations are fools who should have never been allowed to lead.

But if there's a net gain for all parties involved, how is it a bad thing?

Because there is more to it than just "net gain".
It's about relative power. Nations don't just care what they gain in absolute, they care about what they gain relative to others. If trade agreements benefit one country much much more than the other, then they are hard pressed to accept (unless forced, which is what the British and French did to the Ottomans) regardless of absolute gains.
 
Orlais stands to benefit much much more than Ferelden, which will become subservient to the stronger power. No right mind would accept such a thing.

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...
If everyone's standard of living is raised, infrastructure is improved, and the power if the State to repel hostile outsiders increases how can a political merger be a bad thing? Even if one state is much stronger than the other or comes out with the better deal, if everyone profits, what's so bad about it?

Because of the concept of relative gains. Tell me, if your neighbour made a deal with you that would marginally improve your position, while strongly increase his and make you dependent on his whim. Would you do it?

What's bad about it is that  you are becoming dependent on someone else. And when that happens, you no logner have a say in your own future.

Why do you think so many wanted independence from the British and the French? They protected us, they gave us better infra-structure, they improved our economy. So why is half the world stood up and said no more? Because they wanted self-determination.   

[phaonica]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

So against all odds, Loghain was right that Cailan really was planning on dumping Anora to marry Empress Celene? I did not honestly think anyone would be that stupid... Thoughts? 

Making yourself a de facto fief of the country that you fought a revolution to get rid of about 30 years ago?

Only one word can sum up that plan: Glorious!

 Haha.
Too bad that's probably too much text for a Cailan sig banner. That would be hilarious.

[thesuperdarkone]

MariSkep wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

When the people are absorbed and do not have autonomous self-rule, they no longer remain like they were. All those who have sold their nations are fools who should have never been allowed to lead.

But if there's a net gain for all parties involved, how is it a bad thing?

Because there is more to it than just "net gain".
It's about relative power. Nations don't just care what they gain in absolute, they care about what they gain relative to others. If trade agreements benefit one country much much more than the other, then they are hard pressed to accept (unless forced, which is what the British and French did to the Ottomans) regardless of absolute gains.
 
Orlais stands to benefit much much more than Ferelden, which will become subservient to the stronger power. No right mind would accept such a thing.

If everyone's standard of living is raised, infrastructure is improved, and the power if the State to repel hostile outsiders increases how can a political merger be a bad thing? Even if one state is much stronger than the other or comes out with the better deal, if everyone profits, what's so bad about it?

 

That only applies if both countries are treated as equals, which Ferelden isn't. If you read the codexes, you see that Ferelden is considered to be uncivilized and barbarians, meaning that a stronger country will conquer it with the marriage and basically treat itself well while Fereldans get the short end of the stick. Basically, Orlais gets soldiers, resources, and countless other benefits while Fereldens get conquered by their former opressors, have their culture taken away, and basically will be treated as animalistic barbarians. I don't see anything good for Ferelden coming from this marriage.

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
And no, it isn't universally seen as that. The interests of the people are not the same as the nation, as they aren't equivalents..[/quote]

The nation is the people. If they are not given automonous self rule, then their interests are not being observed.
[/quote]No, the nation is a political superstructure of elites and beuracrats representing the interests of a particular population of peoples. In democratic forms of governments it is presumed that the government's legitimacy is derived from the people and should thus represent the people's interests, but nation-institutions have a practical history of preserving their own institutional interests and advantages vis a vis the interests of the people they hold authority over.



[quote]
Yoiu're comparing the Mongols to the Orlesians? Mongols were a nomadic non-civilised people who couldn't possibly assimilate China via population, economics and culture.[/quote]In 70 years, occupying Orlesians couldn't do it either. Why should I give credence that Fereldan will lose all its political, cultural, and social identities in a union on its own terms?

[quote]
You honestly think that Fereldan will be able to assimilate Orlais?[/quote]No, I don't. Which has been my point.

You don't need cultural assimilation to be bound together, or a single unitary culture to stick together.


[quote]

Alliance =/= merger. [/quote]Actually, that's what mergers are: permanent alliances.

[quote]
And the Roman Empire. What do you think happened when those "allies" decided they no longer wanted to be a part of the Empire? That's right, they got crushed.
They foolishly believed themselves as "allies" while in reality they were subordinated. [/quote]Most never had problems with the Romans, and only got crushed by the same invaders that crushed the Romans. But until then, even under Roman subordination, they kept their identities and much of their cultures.

[quote]
Considering that the landsmeet is comprised of short sighted nobles and that the bannorns fight each other over trees, I wouldn't trust Ferelden's national interest in them. [/quote]Then they never represented Ferelden's identity in the first place, and their losing overall sovereignty doesn't change Ferelden identity. Fereldens are a bottom-up culture, not a centralized identity.

[quote]
And if indeed Cailan was planing on asking the landmseet of this, why was he *secretly* talking with Celene about it? Why not declare his intentions? Seems to me he already decided and was going to do it regardless of what the landsmeet says. [/quote]The same reason all preliminary negotiations are secret: to see if such a deal is possible and indeed desirable. Experience has taught many generations that you line up your next deal before you breakup your current one: if it doesn't promise to be possible or pan out, you don't do it.

Would you not agree that Cailan would be far more the fool to break up with Anora, and then publicly anounce an intent to try and arrange a marriage with the Empress of Orlais, as opposed to seeing if the Empress was in the least bit interested first?

[quote]
You assume that there are no ways to trick the landmseet into accepting. Bribery, buying loyalty. Pitting nobles against one another. Al these thigns are variables to be taken into account. [/quote]Since all these dangers already exist, it's the cost of embracing a system.

A system you intend to preserve at all costs, I might add.

The Landsmeet is just one such check on any point Cailan truly oversteps his bounds. Civil War is another: Loghain was far from alone in favor of fighting an imaginary war against the Orlesians after Ostagar.


[quote]
National independence and sovereignity above all else. [/quote]And so you do, and god help the people if they get in the way of that, eh?

[quote]
When the people are absorbed and do not have autonomous self-rule, they no longer remain like they were. All those who have sold their nations are fools who should have never been allowed to lead.[/quote]People and socieites already change, and change constantly. No one remains like they were. Entropy and social change are two of the few constants of civilizations.

That does not mean that people do not gain from better unions with other states, assimilated into the leadership and political system as equals (and not, say, vassals). Unified peoples, after all, stand much better chances of surviving than divided peoples. Many states are far easier for outside threats to divide and conquer than merged alliances, and those greater alliances have greater abilities to provide for and protect their people as well as their interests.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
No, the nation is a political superstructure of elites and beuracrats representing the interests of a particular population of peoples. In democratic forms of governments it is presumed that the government's legitimacy is derived from the people and should thus represent the people's interests, but nation-institutions have a practical history of preserving their own institutional interests and advantages vis a vis the interests of the people they hold authority over.

No, that's the definition of the "State".
And the people have a better cfhance of having their interests observed by their own governnment rather than a foreign one.

 

In 70 years, occupying Orlesians couldn't do it either. Why should I give credence that Fereldan will lose all its political, cultural, and social identities in a union on its own terms?

Because it was attempted by force.
And how is it in their own terms? Weaker nations don't hold agreements on their own terms with stronger powers.   

You don't need cultural assimilation to be bound together, or a single unitary culture to stick together.

Untrue. While there might be room for some differences, all Empires were still bound by a unitary high culture. When the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, all the empire became Christian eventually, regardless of whether they wanted it or not.  

Most never had problems with the Romans, and only got crushed by the same invaders that crushed the
Romans. But until then, even under Roman subordination, they kept their identities and much of their cultures.

Because of Roman garrisons positioned everywhere to make sure that they didn't have a problem, in addition to terrorising acts performed by the Romans, such as the burning of Carthage, to keep the others in line.  
And no, they did not. They kept some of their cultures, but they were still mostly Romans. Do you honestly think that Gaul remained Gaulish? They became what was called "Gallo-Romans" and their culture was more Roman and what it was before. The Roman Empire had a culture of its own that it spread.
Refer again to the Christianity example. The religion could not have spread that much if Rome didn't officially embrace it.

Then they never represented Ferelden's identity in the first place, and their losing overall sovereignty doesn't change Ferelden identity. Fereldens are a bottom-up culture, not a centralized identity.

Hence why I was referring to Orlesian cultural and economic influence that can change Ferelden identity.

The same reason all preliminary negotiations are secret: to see if such a deal is possible and indeed desirable. Experience has taught many generations that you line up your next deal before you breakup your current one: if it doesn't promise to be possible or pan out, you don't do it.

 
The letters implied that he already was in agreement.

Since all these dangers already exist, it's the cost of embracing a system.

A system that its people only have the right to change.

People and socieites already change, and change constantly. No one remains like they were. Entropy and social change are two of the few constants of civilizations.

One thing to change on their own terms. Another to be changed from the outside. It happened and will happen alot. Doesn't mean we should invite them to do it. Nor does it mean that it's desirable for people to allow others to come and change them.   

That does not mean that people do not gain from better unions with other states, assimilated into the leadership and political system as equals (and not, say, vassals).

Ferelden and Orlais are not equal and believing that such a union would hold them on equal footing is naive. Orlais will clearly be the dominant nation. Ferelden will be a vassal.

Unified peoples, after all, stand much better chances of surviving than divided peoples. Many states are far easier for outside threats to divide and conquer than merged alliances, and those greater alliances have greater abilities to provide for and protect their people as well as their interests.

Unions not bound by a comon culture are the ones easy to divide or collapse. 
And so you propose that all weak nations should give up their self determination, because they would be better off?  

This is a very naive ideal you are sticking to. The belief that this is a union and not an assimilation of a weaker nation by a stronger one.
 

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 septembre 2010 - 06:38 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...

And the people have a better cfhance of having their interests observed by their own governnment rather than a foreign one.

But no real guarantee. Especially in a feudal system where your loyalty belongs to the local lord you have zero say in choosing.

Actually, Fereldan freeholders have a say on who is their bann. Orlais doesn't and the fear is that Ferelden's system would gradually change towards that.

Of course, there is no guarantee. But I would trust my own government rather than a foreign one, unless my government was compeltely and utterly idiotic.

[KnightofPhoenix]

MariSkep wrote...
I didn't know that. I always assumed it was your standard vassal and lords system. So how does the system work exactly?

http://dragonage.wik...m/wiki/Ferelden

[OldMan91]

No, that's the definition of the "State".
And the people have a better cfhance of having their interests observed by their own governnment rather than a foreign one.

Thank you for saying this. We should make a clear distinction between the state and a nation. We should also remember that Ferelden is NOT a nation-state.

There is a reason why nowadays we have LOCAL governments, municipalities, town councils, autonomous regions, federated states, etc. As a rule national governments prefer problems be solved at the lowest governmental levels.

Actually, Fereldan freeholders have a say on who is their bann.

I hope we don't translate that to mean "Look, Ferelden is democratic! Hooray!".

Modifié par OldMan91, 06 septembre 2010 - 07:08 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

OldMan91 wrote...

 We should also remember that Ferelden is NOT a nation-state.

Not in the modern sense, true.

However, its clear from its history, its battlecries, symbols and its people that the concept of the Fereldan nation exists. The fact that it's a bottom up culture strengthens that fact as well, as opposed to a top down one.  

EDIT: And of course no, Fereldan is not a democracy.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 septembre 2010 - 07:09 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, that's the definition of the "State".

[/quote]In non-American parlance, the state and the nation-state are effectively identical, because the state represents the nation.


[quote]And the people have a better cfhance of having their interests observed by their own governnment rather than a foreign one.
[/quote]In a merger, it is their own government. It isn't as if the Orlesian beuracracy and nobility are going to move in and replace the Ferelden nobility.


[quote]
Because it was attempted by force.
And how is it in their own terms? Weaker nations don't hold agreements on their own terms with stronger powers.[/quote]Ferelden is already a weaker nation. It will always be a weaker nation. Weaker nations are always well-advised to strike alliances more on their terms earlier than later on much weaker terms.

Without force to forcibly replace Ferelden culture, the only way Ferelden culture would be replaced is much in the same way it is already influenced by Orlesian religion and fashion and more: by popular appeal. Which, like economics, is dependent on the people.If Orlesian culture persuades the Fereldens, then there is no basis to argue that Orlesian culture must be rejected in the name of the Ferelden people.


[quote]
Untrue. While there might be room for some differences, all Empires were still bound by a unitary high culture. When the Roman Empire converted to Christianity, all the empire became Christian eventually, regardless of whether they wanted it or not.  [/quote]Double-negative untrue. The United States is a modern-life example of a multi-cultural state, with only a general singular cultural umbrella covering a wide diversity of ethnicities and political opinions

Rome before Byzantine was also a multicultural state, allowing provinces to maintain their own religions and much of their identities so long as they paid respect to Roman authority. The Persian Empire was a polygot collection of peoples as well.

While large empires require a centralized state-aparatus, they do not require a single culture.



[quote]
Because of Roman garrisons positioned everywhere to make sure that they didn't have a problem, in addition to terrorising acts performed by the Romans, such as the burning of Carthage, to keep the others in line.  [/quote]Oh please, cut the melodrama. Rome never had the people or the treasury to garrison everywhere. Their main troops were where they were needed most, the barbarian borders, not holding down constant uprisings.

Rome also didn't go on regular terrorizing runs to keep the empire in line either: Carthage was salted because it was the third time Carthage made a significant threat to Rome. Most of the empire never needed a stern hand.

[quote]
And no, they did not. They kept some of their cultures, but they were still mostly Romans. Do you honestly think that Gaul remained Gaulish? They became what was called "Gallo-Romans" and their culture was more Roman and what it was before. The Roman Empire had a culture of its own that it spread.[/quote]And was affected by what it took in. Roman Culture is highly influenced by the Greeks they invaded, so much so that the eventual cultural heart of the Roman Empire went east, out of Italy.

[quote]
Refer again to the Christianity example. The religion could not have spread that much if Rome didn't officially embrace it. [/quote]The real rise of Christianity occured after the collapse of Rome, and coincided with the Byzantine. And Christianity itself was a religion that set out to co-op many pagan traditions and religions, stealing their symbols and holidays for its own. Christianity wasn't some monolithic cultur which entered in without making accomodations in those early centuries.
[quote]
Hence why I was referring to Orlesian cultural and economic influence that can change Ferelden identity. [/quote]Except you were making a point that Ferelden identity is independent of the Landsmeet, and so a corrupt Landsmeet can't overrule it any more so.


[quote]
The letters implied that he already was in agreement. [/quote]Which he had to make in secret, yes.
[quote]
A system that its people only have the right to change. [/quote]Depends on the system. Various representative governments operate under the idea of implied consent, that because the populace chose and supports the representatives, their decisions are implied to have popular support. The European Union's Lisbon Treaty, for example, of the ascession of new states into the US Congress.

Of course, Ferelden isn't a democracy in the first place, and never has been, so to argue it isn't following democratic nationalistic principles is rather like tilting at windmills. The legitimacy of rule in Ferelden rests with the nobles of the Landsmeet, not the people of the nation.

[quote]

One thing to change on their own terms. Another to be changed from the outside. It happened and will happen alot. Doesn't mean we should invite them to do it. Nor does it mean that it's desirable for people to allow others to come and change them.   [/quote]A political union is on their own terms, given the nature of monarchy, and a workable union will have to respect the Fereldan need to acquiess, or else it would fall apart and turn out not to be a union.

[quote]
Ferelden and Orlais are not equal and believing that such a union would hold them on equal footing is naive. Orlais will clearly be the dominant nation. Ferelden will be a vassal. [/quote]Not necessitated at all. Few unions in history are between actual equals, but a large part of convincing the weaker party to join entails equal status and compromises to it's weaker nature. In the US, for example, smaller states have a equal say in the Senate. In the EU, special exemptions from common obligations. In China, special autonomous zones and self-management. 

Without such compromises, the unions rarely go through. The naivety of such a situation lies in assuming that no such compromise would be demanded.

[quote]
Unions not bound by a comon culture are the ones easy to divide or collapse. [/quote]Only if there are certain unequal cultural groups that are being subordinated and oppressed by the rest. National units are enforced divides in any front, while social reforms of a single nation can give all the significant groups an investment in the success of the overall effort.

[quote]
And so you propose that all weak nations should give up their self determination, because they would be better off?  [/quote]If they want to, and if their lawful leaders support it, I would certainly not get in their way (unless my own nationalist reasons came to play). I certainly do not support balkanization and the rise of the micro-states, simply on the policy of 'these few people think themsevlves different'.

Undoubtably many smaller states would be better off if they could present a common position to an outsider.
[quote]
This is a very naive ideal you are sticking to. The belief that this is a union and not an assimilation of a weaker nation by a stronger one.
 [/quote]It can only be an assimilation if the Fereldens allow it, and the occupation is proof that it can be only if the Fereldens allow it. As a union, the Fereldens very well can keep their identity, if not the nationhood they were accustomed ot, and come off much better.

Or not. But the possibility is not precluded, nor should it be treated as if it is.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 septembre 2010 - 07:11 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Fereldan is what I could call a Semi-constitutional Monarchy.

[OldMan91]

Fereldan is what I could call a Semi-constitutional Monarchy.

No, it isn't. A constitutional monarchy requires... surprise! A constitution! Which don't exist in Thedas or Ferelden. Not even a charter of any kind.

However, its clear from its history, its battlecries, symbols and its
people that the concept of the Fereldan nation exists. The fact that
it's a bottom up culture strengthens that fact as well, as opposed to a
top down one.

Definitely. Nations have existed before the rise of modern states. I don't know why Dean keeps insisting on the "Orleasian bureaucracy" though as I've never read that Orlais has any kind of bureaucracy, at least not in the modern sense... unless we're talking about scribes and such. Orlais is a typical feudal society, with lords and vassals, nobles and serfs.

Modifié par OldMan91, 06 septembre 2010 - 07:26 .

[Costin_Razvan]

No, it isn't. A constitutional monarchy requires... surprise! A constitution! Which don't exist in Thedas or Ferelden. Not even a charter of any kind.

Really? Just because the game doesn't mention them shouldn't mean they aren't there. Or do you think the rules of crowing a King based on the votes in the Landsmeet is something done by tradition rather then laws placed by Calenhad himself?

It seems to that Fereldan does have a set of laws that each noble has to follow.

Could you be bothered to actually check the meaning of SEMI-Constitutional btw?

It means that the people have some limited power, but that the King still has the most. Fereldan fits because the Freeholders can choose who they swear fealty to, they are not sworn to serve anyone.

Also, the fact the Landsmeet ( not the King ) holds the ultimate say in Fereldan, also adds to that definition.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 06 septembre 2010 - 07:40 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

MariSkep wrote...

And the people have a better cfhance of having their interests observed by their own governnment rather than a foreign one.

But no real guarantee. Especially in a feudal system where your loyalty belongs to the local lord you have zero say in choosing.

Actually, Fereldan freeholders have a say on who is their bann. Orlais doesn't and the fear is that Ferelden's system would gradually change towards that.

Of course, there is no guarantee. But I would trust my own government rather than a foreign one, unless my government was compeltely and utterly idiotic.

Like under Loghain.  Just thought I'd remind you.  :innocent:

[Dean_the_Young]

OldMan91 wrote...

Fereldan is what I could call a Semi-constitutional Monarchy.

No, it isn't. A constitutional monarchy requires... surprise! A constitution! Which don't exist in Thedas or Ferelden. Not even a charter of any kind.

However, its clear from its history, its battlecries, symbols and its
people that the concept of the Fereldan nation exists. The fact that
it's a bottom up culture strengthens that fact as well, as opposed to a
top down one.

Definitely. Nations have existed before the rise of modern states. I don't know why Dean keeps insisting on the "Orleasian bureaucracy" though as I've never read that Orlais has any kind of bureaucracy, at least not in the modern sense... unless we're talking about scribes and such. Orlais is a typical feudal society, with lords and vassals, nobles and serfs.

Exactly that. While the professional, organized beuracracy, the appointed administrators as a modern concept came more or less later, the scribes and record keepers and tax collectors and constulbary and treasurers and middle-level managers (like Senechals) that allow organized governments to exist do certainly exist. They'd have to, in order to allow a fuedal society.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 septembre 2010 - 07:51 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
In non-American parlance, the state and the nation-state are effectively identical, because the state represents the nation.[/quote]

No, not at all. In that case, it's a "Nation-State". But a state can exist without a nation and a nation can exist without a state. It would just be better off being a nation-state, in order to acquire self determination.



[quote]In a merger, it is their own government. It isn't as if the Orlesian beuracracy and nobility are going to move in and replace the Ferelden nobility.[/quote]

Of a foreign nation. And seeing how Orlais is the strongest, than this new empire would be centralised in Orlais.
The Roman Empire appointed governors on most of their conquered territories. What you like to call "allies".



[quote]
Ferelden is already a weaker nation. It will always be a weaker nation. Weaker nations are always well-advised to strike alliances more on their terms earlier than later on much weaker terms.[/quote]

Not necessarily always, I am of the convinction that Anora's reforms would strengthen it and if it focuses on trade in the sea, it would alleviate its dependence on Orlais.
And this is nonsense, weaker nations have become the strongest eventually. They just need to make sure they aren't devoured.
Prussia was a backwater until Frederick made it a major power, without having to resort to loss of sovereignity. On the contrary.  
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Without force to forcibly replace Ferelden culture, the only way Ferelden culture would be replaced is much in the same way it is already influenced by Orlesian religion and fashion and more: by popular appeal. Which, like economics, is dependent on the people.If Orlesian culture persuades the Fereldens, then there is no basis to argue that Orlesian culture must be rejected in the name of the Ferelden people. [/quote]

So you argue to let all nations open up their borders and allow their culture to be weakened and then let the people decide? That's not how politics work sorry.  

[quote]
Double-negative untrue. The United States is a modern-life example of a multi-cultural state, with only a general singular cultural umbrella covering a wide diversity of ethnicities and political opinions [/quote]

Hence why I said a unitary *high* culture and not a single culture. And the USA is a modern federation. Anachronistic example.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Rome before Byzantine was also a multicultural state, allowing provinces to maintain their own religions and much of their identities so long as they paid respect to Roman authority. The Persian Empire was a polygot collection of peoples as well.

While large empires require a centralized state-aparatus, they do not require a single culture.[/quote]

No, it was not. The Roman Empire had a unitary culture and language. Of course the conquered people still had some of their culture, but when "all roads lead to Rome" all the subjugated peoples were commanded by it. 
As for their own religions. Untrue, Roman religion spread to the Levant and other places. They were not so adamant about it, because their religion could coexist with others. But to suggest that the Roman Empire was a loose association of different peoples on equal footing, then no that's wrong. Roman culture was dominant and anyone who wanted to have a future had to become Roman. Becomign a Roman Citizen (thus have a future within the Empire) required you to emgbrace Roman culture.  

The Achaemenid Persians were not so civilised at the very beginning and were forced to take on Mesopotamian culture and language (specifically Armaic) as a foundation of their Empire (which was already spreat to the Levant and even Egypt at the time) and so yes, they had a unitary high culture.    
Language isn't the only thing in culture. To also suggest that the Achaemids or the Sassanids didnt' have cultural influence, is wrong. Not saying that all under the Empire were strictly Persian. But they were influenced by the culture.



[quote]
Rome also didn't go on regular terrorizing runs to keep the empire in line either: Carthage was salted because it was the third time Carthage made a significant threat to Rome. Most of the empire never needed a stern hand.[/quote]

Actually no, Carthage was no threat at all and the 3rd punic war was started because they wanted to erase Carthage forever.
It's irrlevent whether it needed a stern hand or not. The point is, any rebellion against Rome was meant with swift retribution. Which shows that your belief that Roman Empire was a collection of "allies" is wrong.

[quote]
And was affected by what it took in. Roman Culture is highly influenced by the Greeks they invaded, so much so that the eventual cultural heart of the Roman Empire went east, out of Italy.[/quote]

Because it's Greece, the bastion of civilisation in Europe. You are not going to compare Ferelden to Greece now are you?
Other than the Greeks, the Roman Empire was not greatly influenced by any of the subjugated peoples, with the exception of Christianity but this is extra-state element (and required an Emperor to declare it official).

[quote]
The real rise of Christianity occured after the collapse of Rome[/quote]

Arguable. Christianity becoming the official religion of the Empire was the beginning of its rise.  



[quote]
Except you were making a point that Ferelden identity is independent of the Landsmeet, and so a corrupt Landsmeet can't overrule it any more so.[/quote]

But commerce and religion can.


[quote]
Of course, Ferelden isn't a democracy in the first place, and never has been, so to argue it isn't following democratic nationalistic principles is rather like tilting at windmills. The legitimacy of rule in Ferelden rests with the nobles of the Landsmeet, not the people of the nation. [/quote]

Nobles chosen by the freeholders.

[quote]
A political union is on their own terms, given the nature of monarchy, and a workable union will have to respect the Fereldan need to acquiess, or else it would fall apart and turn out not to be a union.[/quote]

How? Cailan marrying suddenly makes the merger on Ferelden's terms? 
I am talking about economics, relative power, military power. To believe that the union will be in ferelden terms is naive. Terms are not set by weaker nations to stronger ones, not when there is no such thign as international insitutions to regulate such agreements.   

[quote]
Not necessitated at all. Few unions in history are between actual equals, but a large part of convincing the weaker party to join entails equal status and compromises to it's weaker nature. In the US, for example, smaller states have a equal say in the Senate. In the EU, special exemptions from common obligations. In China, special autonomous zones and self-management.  [/quote]

You are talking about modern institutions that could not exist at the time.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Without such compromises, the unions rarely go through. The naivety of such a situation lies in assuming that no such compromise would be demanded.[/quote]

Hence why it's not really a union, but a merger and assimilation of a weaker nation by a stronger one.
Even if compromises are given, it would still not change the balance of power and who is the more dominant part of this "union". 

The Rmans too gave compromises to parts of their territories and no one doubts that they dominated. They considered the leader of Palmyra a king. But what happened when Palmyra wanted to leave? Crushed.  


[quote]
Only if there are certain unequal cultural groups that are being subordinated and oppressed by the rest. National units are enforced divides in any front, while social reforms of a single nation can give all the significant groups an investment in the success of the overall effort.[/quote]

Wrong. the Hungarians still wanted to leave the Austrio-Hungarian Empire (called that way to emphasise on equality). The compromise worked for a while, until the Hungarians realised they wanted to self-determine their course.



[quote]
If they want to, and if their lawful leaders support it, I would certainly not get in their way (unless my own nationalist reasons came to play). I certainly do not support balkanization and the rise of the micro-states, simply on the policy of 'these few people think themsevlves different'. [/quote]

On that basis, opposition to Cailan is valid.
And that's a bit hypocritical. Imagine you are from a poor country. Would you accept merger with a much more powerful country that had invaded yours a few decades before?

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
Undoubtably many smaller states would be better off if they could present a common position to an outsider.
[/quote]

Smaller states bandwagoning and balancing against a strong one is one thing. Smaller states merging with stronger ones is another completely.
They become dependent and lose self determination.
[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
It can only be an assimilation if the Fereldens allow it, and the occupation is proof that it can be only if the Fereldens allow it. As a union, the Fereldens very well can keep their identity, if not the nationhood they were accustomed ot, and come off much better.

Or not. But the possibility is not precluded, nor should it be treated as if it is.
[/quote]

Assimilation is something that requires time and is very subtle. It's not like Fereldens get to vote on whether they want to change their culture or not. Generation upon generation will force that change without them realising it.
If this empire is centralised in Orlais like it would be and if Orlais is the center of commerce and education, then Fereldans will be assimialted in the long run even if they don't realise it.
 
To protect against such a thing, no merger should happen in the first place.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 septembre 2010 - 08:03 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]KnightofPhoenix wrote...

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
In non-American parlance, the state and the nation-state are effectively identical, because the state represents the nation.[/quote]

No, not at all. In that case, it's a "Nation-State". But a state can exist without a nation and a nation can exist without a state. It would just be better off being a nation-state, in order to acquire self determination.
[/quote]At this point we'll just be arguing into semantics. My point is that the Ferelden state, the network of fuedal noblility and the king, are different from the Ferelden people, and so are their interests.


[quote]Of a foreign nation. And seeing how Orlais is the strongest, than this new empire would be centralised in Orlais.
The Roman Empire appointed governors on most of their conquered territories. What you like to call "allies". [/quote]No, what I call allies are the city-states and regions inside those conquered territories that had willingly joined the Romans, aiding their militaries and such. These were not conquered, and kept most of their domestic autonomy in exchange for agreements with the Romans.


[quote]
Not necessarily always, I am of the convinction that Anora's reforms would strengthen it and if it focuses on trade in the sea, it would alleviate its dependence on Orlais.[/quote]Ferelden can be as independent from Orlais in economy as it wants, it will still be smaller than Orlais, and it will still be worse off against the eventual Qunari invasion than if it and Orlais were one.

[quote]
And this is nonsense, weaker nations have become the strongest eventually. They just need to make sure they aren't devoured.
Prussia was a backwater until Frederick made it a major power, without having to resort to loss of sovereignity. On the contrary.  [/quote]Prussia is also the exception to the rule, and gained in power by expanding and subjugating other states until it made permanent alliances with other states in the German unification, to which it faded away.

[quote]
So you argue to let all nations open up their borders and allow their culture to be weakened and then let the people decide? That's not how politics work sorry.  [/quote]Actually, that's quite often how politics work. Self-determination isn't just an aspect of balkanization, but of border mediation with other cultural units.

I've certainly favored the fates of maritime powers such as Britain and the US, which due to reliance on foreign trade have been expanded to foreign cultures many times over and created stronger and enduring hybrid cultures, as opposed to the usually land-bound culturally-'pure' states that get so worried over it that they often emplace many more resctrictions on their populaces.

[quote]
Hence why I said a unitary *high* culture and not a single culture. And the USA is a modern federation. Anachronistic example.[/quote]Cultural breakups are timeless. Other states as well have been multi-cultural polygots.

[quote]
No, it was not. The Roman Empire had a unitary culture and language. Of course the conquered people still had some of their culture, but when "all roads lead to Rome" all the subjugated peoples were commanded by it. 
As for their own religions. Untrue, Roman religion spread to the Levant and other places. They were not so adamant about it, because their religion could coexist with others. But to suggest that the Roman Empire was a loose association of different peoples on equal footing, then no that's wrong. Roman culture was dominant and anyone who wanted to have a future had to become Roman. Becomign a Roman Citizen (thus have a future within the Empire) required you to emgbrace Roman culture.  [/quote]Of course culture spread. Culture spreading doesn't mean anything in this context. But much of Roman culture was assimilated, not enforced, and cultural blending always occurs with the opening of exchange of ideas and views between groups.

I never said the Roman Empire was a loose association. It had a highly centralized government and bueracracy. What is was lossely was a culture. Roman Citizenship was far from a requirement or widespread or even necessary: infact, one of the great societal problems of the Roman Republic-turn-Empire was the rise of non-citizen merchants driving large parts of the Roman citizenry out of jobs and into the cycle of bread and circuses. Roman Culture spread, but it was not  directly enforced by the sword as Roman rule was.

[quote]
The Achaemenid Persians were not so civilised at the very beginning and were forced to take on Mesopotamian culture as a foundation of their Empire (which was already spreat to the Levant and even Egypt at the time) and so yes, they had a unitary high culture.    
Language isn't the only thing in culture. To also suggest that the Achaemids or the Sassanids didnt' have cultural influence, is wrong. Not saying that all under the Empire were strictly Prsian. But their were influenced by the culture. [/quote]No one saying that their was no cultural influence. But cultural influence is not the same as cultural enforcement or a unitary culture and, indeed as the demonstration case of the US, broad cultures can have extremely high variety within them.  There was a Persian Empire with a Persian Culture, but that Culture was remarkably varied from one end to the next.


pquote]
Actually no, Carthage was no threat at all and the 3rd punic war was started because they wanted to erase Carthage foerver.
It's irrlevent whetrher it needed a stern hand or not. The point is, any rebellion against Rome was meant with swift retribution. Which shows that your belief that Roman Empire was a collectio of "allies" is wrong. [/quote]Existential threat, no, but it certainly was a threat to Roman interests. Carthage was a outlier in the usual Roman policy, it's treatment due in large part due to the nature of repeat infractions, as were the Jewish Rebellions. Rome, while hardly great by modern standards, was a much more acclimating empire.


[quote]
Because it's Greece, the bastion of civilisation in Europe. You are not going to compare Ferelden to Greece now are you?
Other than the Greeks, the Roman Empire was not greatly influenced by any of the subjugated peoples, with the exception of Christianity but this is extra-state elements (and required an Emperor to declare it official). [/quote]Let's not ****** Greek ego, here, or imply that everyone else not greek was barbarians. My ancestors would be mighty offended.
[quote]
[quote]
Except you were making a point that Ferelden identity is independent of the Landsmeet, and so a corrupt Landsmeet can't overrule it any more so.[/quote]

But commerce and religion can. [/quote]Only if the Ferelden people allow it to. History is far more common with money and religion alone altering, not supplanting, the identities of the people involved. But Ferelden is already a devout Chantry nation as well, and already pays the White Divine great respect.


[quote]
Nobles chosen by the freeholders. [/quote]Who are not the voice of the landsmeet, nor are they the average citizen. Ferelden isn't a democracy.

[quote]
How? Cailan marrying suddenly makes the merger on Ferelden's terms? [/quote]Cailan is the one representing Ferelden here, Cailan is the one who's agreement is needed for such a deal to go through, and the interests and acquiesence of the Ferelden nobility is needed lest Cailan's heir not be recognized and even Cailan himself dethroned. And if either of those happen, Orlais gains no hold over Ferelden in the long run.

Cailan might not set good terms (more likely he has to to be tolerated by the Nobility), but it is his (and thus Ferelden's) terms to set, not Celene's.

Well, Celene can set her terms, but nothing is obligating Cailan to agree with them.
[quote]
I am talking about economics, relative power, military power. To believe that the union will be in ferelden terms is naive. Terms are not set by weaker nations to stronger ones, not when there is no such thign as international insitutions to regulate such agreements.   [/quote]Actually, they are. Power does not simply exist in GDP or military might, it also depends on a willingness to go around. Ferelden is not begging for terms, it is offering terms, and it can offer whatever terms and whatever conditions to insure it it likes. It can dictate that if a Chevalier comes to Ferelden without Landsmeet permission, the marriage is annuled. It can make clear that no child of the two will inherit both thrones. It can agree that Ferelden nobles must come from Ferelden. It can even set up a new state and beuracracy, such as the union of Castile and Aragon into Spain.

It can make whatever terms it wants, because Ferelden in this case is offering them, and in that it can also dictate terms it can separate with.


[quote]
You are talking about modern institutions that could not exist at the time. [/quote]Not at all. Feudal agreements could be just as complex as modern federalism.

[quote]
Hence why it's not really a union, but a merger and assimilation of a weaker nation by a stronger one.
Even if compromises are given, it would still not change the balance of power and who is the more dominant part of this "union". [/quote]Sure it does. Compromise is a two way street: both sides give up something tolerable to get what they both want. Simply because New York and California outweigh the Midwest in every regard does not mean that they dominate them.

[quote]
The Rmans too gave compromises to parts of their territories and no one doubts that they dominated. They considered the leader of Palmyra a king. But what happened when Palmyra wanted to leave? Crushed.  [/quote]But when it didn't want to leave, it retained significant rights and privaleges.


[quote]
Wrong. the Hungarians still wanted to leave the Austrio-Hungarian Empire (called that way to emphasies on equality). The compromise worked for a while, until the Hungarians realised they wanted to self-determine their course.[/quote]At which point the situation wasn't balanced between the two, and opinions had changed.

Few things are everlasting. Pointing to the inevitable breakup due to shifting opinions doesn't undermine the long history of stability. At the time, Austria-Hungary was one of the oldest existing states in the world. If we want to cherry-pick points that agreements and partnerships go foul, it doesn't undermine the legitimacy of them.

All you really pointed to there is that if Ferelden later decided to get out, it would. If.


[quote]
On that basis, opposition to Cailan is valid.
And that's a bit hypocritical. Imagine you are from a poor country. Would you accept merger with a much more powerful country that had invaded yours a few decades before? [/quote]Me supporting my own nationalist interests doesn't obligate me to support other peoples nationalist interests. If Cailan doesn't have a nationalist outlook, and his policies don't affect mine, I'm hardly invested in the outcome. If I had to back every nationalist view, I'd be conflicted between yours, and Celenes, and would have to treat both as valid.

And to answer your question, yes. I am quite happy that the South re-entered the US proper after being conquered.

[quote]
Smaller states bandwagoning and balancing against a strong one is one thing. Smaller states merging with stronger ones is another compeltely. [/quote]Relative to eachother, though, smaller states are still stronger and weaker to eachother. They are only equally weak in the eyes of the stronger.

In this case, we can portray the stronger as the Qunari, a force it took many Orlesian Exalted Marches to push back. Ferelden and Orlais are both weak compared to the Qunari.


[quote]
Assimilation is something that requires time and is very subtle. It's not like Fereldens get to vote on whether they want to change their culture or not. Generation upon generation will force that change without them realising it.
If this empire is centralised in Orlais like it would be and if Orlais is the center of commerce and education, then Fereldans will be assimialted in the long run even if they don't realise it.[/quote]Fereldens vote for it with their preferences. If they don't like an Orlesian cultural import, they will reject it. Their own education centers of lower-levels will maintain and propogate such views as well. There is a reason that cultural differences remain and rise again between regions of central states and empires.
 
[quote]
To protect against such a thing, no merger should happen in the first place.
[/quote]A merger should be allowed if the people acquiess to it.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 06 septembre 2010 - 08:32 .

[OldMan91]

It means that the people have some limited power, but that the King still has the most. Fereldan fits because the Freeholders can choose who they swear fealty to, they are not sworn to serve anyone.

Also, the fact the Landsmeet ( not the King ) holds the ultimate say in Fereldan, also adds to that definition.

You are equating "the people" with the freeholders. They're not the same. Freeholders are landowners. The majority of Fereldens are not landowners. From the Dragon Age Wiki, "Freeholder: the term for any land-owner in Ferelden. A few commoners are freeholders." A few commoners. And there is no constitution or charter because it's never mentioned, not even in the landsmeet when you talk down Loghain. If it did exist, Eamon would have surely referred to it in his addressing speech to the landsmeet. Or Loghain. Or Anora. No one mentions any document setting down the guidelines, conventions or rules that limit a monarch's power. You may even be right that the crowning of a king is done by tradition rather than rules. Ferelden is not a formal bureaucracy and there is no formalized institutional set of rules and behaviour. Would you call Orzammar a "semi-constitutional monarchy"? I wouldn't. I'd call it an oligarchy, which is what it is.

And the landsmeet, while in some ways similar to a parliament, is made up by nobles, not elected representatives. Hardly a constitutional or semi-constitutional monarchy. It's more accurate to say that Ferelden is a hybrid between a feudal oligarchy and an absolutist monarchy.

Modifié par OldMan91, 06 septembre 2010 - 09:41 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

[quote]Dean_the_Young wrote...
At this point we'll just be arguing into semantics. My point is that the Ferelden state, the network of fuedal noblility and the king, are different from the Ferelden people, and so are their interests.[/quote]

But there is a better chance that those nobles and freeholders who have lived in the same land and share the same culture as the people would be better to their interests than foreigners.


[quote]No, what I call allies are the city-states and regions inside those conquered territories that had willingly joined the Romans, aiding their militaries and such. These were not conquered, and kept most of their domestic autonomy in exchange for agreements with the Romans.[/quote]


That was before it became an Empire. After the 1rst and 2nd punic war, those city states were subordinated.
 
As I grow tired of htis, I am just going to quote a book:
"In course of arrangements made after the end of the war (2nd punic), moreover, many communities in southern Italy suffered massive confiscations of lands, which badly hurt their citizens and their economies".
"An expansion of full Roman citizenship and a hardening of the discintion between Roman and non-Roman accompanied greater Roman surverillance over local affairs".
"All these extensions of the right to vote, it should be remembered, required assigning each community concerned to a Roman tribe"
"At the same time, the Romans seen to have gradually shifted more of the burdens and fewer of the benfits of waging war to the LAtins and other Italian allies. No doubt Romans had laways apportioned the burdens and benefits of warfar unequally, but there are signs now that allies communities were carrying more of the burden for a smaller share of the profit"
- A brief history of the Romans, chapter 5: Italy and Empire.
 
You're confusing Rome pre-Empire and Rome after the 2nd punic war. As it became evident that Rome was very powerful, it dominated over all its allies that they could no longer be called as such. the transformation of Rome into an Empire that commanded its provinces was gradual, but it came. The Empire was not a collection of autonomous city-states.



[quote]
Ferelden can be as independent from Orlais in economy as it wants, it will still be smaller than Orlais, and it will still be worse off against the eventual Qunari invasion than if it and Orlais were one.[/quote]


If the empire is centralised in Orlais, then the economy will open up regardless of what they want. and it''s a merger, economic merger is bound to happen and thus economic depdence is bound to happen. 
Ferelden would rather take its chances withotu a merger.

[quote]
Prussia is also the exception to the rule, and gained in power by expanding and subjugating other states until it made permanent alliances with other states in the German unification, to which it faded away.[/quote]


No, it isn't. Russia was a backwater before becoming a major power. France was a backwater before Charlemagne. England was a backwater before Wiliam the conqueror.

And the German unification was in Prussia's favor and its king became the king of the Reich, that's what Bismarck had always intented, thus the rejection of Austria (the 2nd most owerful German state) from the union.

[quote]
I've certainly favored the fates of maritime powers such as Britain and the US, which due to reliance on foreign trade have been expanded to foreign cultures many times over and created stronger and enduring hybrid cultures, as opposed to the usually land-bound culturally-'pure' states that get so worried over it that they often emplace many more resctrictions on their populaces.[/quote]


Britian relied on foreign trade but it was not dependent and its partners were more dependent on it than it was. It's wrong to assume that Britian's rise to the status of hegemon was based on its dependence on stronger powers. It fought wars with France to ensure that didn't happen. Not to mention taht it was duh! a colonialist Empire that forced favorable terms for itself to its colonies.
Britain's henegomy was indeed based on its economic dominance of Europe (and the Orttomans). Not the other way around.  

[quote]
Cultural breakups are timeless. Other states as well have been multi-cultural polygots.[/quote]


But ruled under one authrority and one high culture. And the imperial language would have been the most important language.

[quote]
Roman Culture spread, but it was not  directly enforced by the sword as Roman rule was. [/quote]


The Romans banned human sacrifice in Gaul, which was an intrinsic part of their culture and druid religion. The Romans persecuted the early Christians.
And considering how militaristic Rome was, it's naive to asume that their military strength wasn't the basis of their cultural dominance.

"Rome's imperium is just and natural, for superior peoples should govern inferiors to the latter's advantage" (Ancient Rome from early republic to the assassination of Julius Caesar).

But that's besides the point. Cultural dominance doesn't have to be spread by the sword for it to happen.

[quote]
No one saying that their was no cultural influence. But cultural influence is not the same as cultural enforcement or a unitary culture and, indeed as the demonstration case of the US, broad cultures can have extremely high variety within them.  There was a Persian Empire with a Persian Culture, but that Culture was remarkably varied from one end to the next.[/quote]


Cultural influence that was based on indirect enforcement, that's the very nature of Empires. They being centralised and having one enforceable law has inevitable permutations on culture. Not to mention taht all Empires were based on military might.  

Regardless, the people within those empires lacked self determination and their culture was threatened and weakened. Unless you believe taht the Jews were better off in the Roman Empire than  they were as an independent kingdom (and yes I know it was not the Romans who destroyed their kingdom).   

[quote]
Existential threat, no, but it certainly was a threat to Roman interests. Carthage was a outlier in the usual Roman policy, it's treatment due in large part due to the nature of repeat infractions, as were the Jewish Rebellions. Rome, while hardly great by modern standards, was a much more acclimating empire.[/quote]


Eh, no. Rome was highly militaristic and was known to have been very brutal. Jewish rebellions, Carthage, revolts in Gaul..etc. 
As quoted above, militarism was the highest virtue of the Empire. 

I can quote several passages to what rome did to impose itself in both ITaly and without.


[quote]
Let's not ****** Greek ego, here, or imply that everyone else not greek was barbarians. My ancestors would be mighty offended.[/quote]


That's not what I implied. But during that time, Greece was definately the bastion of civilisation in Europe, yes. Not saying others were barbarians, but Greece was more civilised (doesn't mean they are better).  

[quote]
Only if the Ferelden people allow it to. History is far more common with money and religion alone altering, not supplanting, the identities of the people involved. But Ferelden is already a devout Chantry nation as well, and already pays the White Divine great respect.[/quote]


Economics on a large scale are outside the people's power to accept or decline. IF Ferelden becomes economically subservient to Orlais, which is the only logical conclusion as Ferelden lacks any special kind of ressource and a large labour force, the people won't have a say in the matter, as it's outside their power.

And yes, Ferelden is a chantry follower, but it's indepdent. Orlais could use the religion to further enforce its rule, as we all know where the Chantry is centralised.  


[quote]
Who are not the voice of the landsmeet, nor are they the average citizen. Ferelden isn't a democracy.[/quote]


I never claimed that they are. But a large portion of the Fereldan people have a way to be represented and it's via the banns. Who can still be bought, mind you.
But it's a system that is better than Orlais'  

[quote]
Cailan might not set good terms (more likely he has to to be tolerated by the Nobility), but it is his (and thus Ferelden's) terms to set, not Celene's.

Well, Celene can set her terms, but nothing is obligating Cailan to agree with them.[/quote]


Terms that are still not going to put the two countries on equal footing. And the nobles can be bought by Celene to accept her terms.  


[quote]
Actually, they are. Power does not simply exist in GDP or military might, it also depends on a willingness to go around. [/quote]


What? What does "going around" even mean. OF course GDP and military might are the most essential in defining a major power.
[quote]
It can make whatever terms it wants, because Ferelden in this case is offering them, and in that it can also dictate terms it can separate with.[/quote]


All of which will be void as they do not guarantee equality in the "union" and Orlais would stand to benefit more in either case. And eventually as time passes, will be rendered useless as the probable outcome is Ferelden assimilation regardless of terms. The other alternative is civil war. You either rule or are ruled. Weaker nations can think they can have terms, like the allies of Rome thought they were allies, until Rome became too powerful and imposed itself on them. 

So your idea necessitates two coutnries that are relatively equal and can deter one another. That's not the case between Orlais and Ferelden.  



[quote]
Not at all. Feudal agreements could be just as complex as modern federalism.[/quote]


Sigh, institutions. It''s more than just arrangements. Federalism was definately based on feudalism, but to suggest feudalism is as complex as modern Federalism based on modern insitutions? No sorry.

[quote]
Sure it does. Compromise is a two way street: both sides give up something tolerable to get what they both want. Simply because New York and California outweigh the Midwest in every regard does not mean that they dominate them.[/quote]


Once again, you are comparing the USA to two monarchies with a whole set of different institutions. They cannot be compared.  And yes the USA is economically centralised.

Compromise need to stand the est of time. Thsoe who compromsied with Rome found themselves assimilated. Initial compromises have no guarantee on remaining if the strogner power you com,promised with doesn't decide to screw you over.  

[quote]
But when it didn't want to leave, it retained significant rights and privaleges.[/quote]


And was still dependent and subservient to Rome and was culturally influenced by Rome and was treated as a province of Rome. Hence they wanting to leave.
In fact the rebellion was only made possible because Rome was weakened. Had it been in its apex, they wouldn't have even dared to think about it. Because Roman rule was imposed by force or the threat of force.

[quote]
At which point the situation wasn't balanced between the two, and opinions had changed.

Few things are everlasting. Pointing to the inevitable breakup due to shifting opinions doesn't undermine the long history of stability. At the time, Austria-Hungary was one of the oldest existing states in the world. If we want to cherry-pick points that agreements and partnerships go foul, it doesn't undermine the legitimacy of them.[/quote]


Stability because the Austrians imposed their rule by force and regarded all others as second class citizens. Only when they started compromsing with Hungarians, did the latters decide they rightfuly wanted their own nation.

And thus you keep assume that  Ferelden and Orlais merging would be balanced and that is politically impossible. There can be no balance between a strong and weak nation.



[quote]
Me supporting my own nationalist interests doesn't obligate me to support other peoples nationalist interests. If Cailan doesn't have a nationalist outlook, and his policies don't affect mine, I'm hardly invested in the outcome. If I had to back every nationalist view, I'd be conflicted between yours, and Celenes, and would have to treat both as valid. [/quote]


Celene's view is not nationalist, it's imperialist.
[quote]
And to answer your question, yes. I am quite happy that the South re-entered the US proper after being conquered.[/quote]

Would you like the USA be annexed by say Canada should it become stronger?

And I think you shoudl reflect on the injustice the North did to the South. But I don't get into taht. Suffice to say that economic policies of the North was ruiniung the South prior the civil war, further showing how the more wealthy states will always dictate the economy of the weaker ones whether directly or not.

[quote]
Relative to eachother, though, smaller states are still stronger and weaker to eachother. They are only equally weak in the eyes of the stronger.[/quote]


Nto necessarily. And whatever  difference in power between them can be minimal.
[quote]
In this case, we can portray the stronger as the Qunari, a force it took many Orlesian Exalted Marches to push back. Ferelden and Orlais are both weak compared to the Qunari.[/quote]


And yet Thedas managed to drive them back without resorting to living under one Empire.

[quote]
Fereldens vote for it with their preferences. If they don't like an Orlesian cultural import, they will reject it. Their own education centers of lower-levels will maintain and propogate such views as well. There is a reason that cultural differences remain and rise again between regions of central states and empires.[/quote]


Again, not really. Subjugated peoples in Empires are always better off embracing the Imperial culture and will do so automatically. Differences exist, but not enough for them to be independent. The peoples of the Roman Empire had a unitary high culture and an imperial cult that was imposed indirectly and sometimes directly by force.  
 
[quote]
A merger should be allowed if the people acquiess to it.
[/quote]

You assume that the matter is put on a popular vote which is nto the case. So it's more like, "let's make a merger and then see if the people like it or not, at the risk of civil war". Yea, doesn't make sense.

And seeing what we know of the Ferelden people, such an idea would never be accepted and thus Cailan's idiocy. Except that the Orlesians would have had 4 legions of chevaliers in the country and would have struck deals with some nobles and would probably have launched an invasion regardless.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 06 septembre 2010 - 09:56 .

[Costin_Razvan]

OldMan91: Orzammar is different from what Fereldan is due to the nature of the Freeholders.

And yes, I do consider the Freeholders to represent the majority of Fereldan's populations, as in my eyes a Freeholder = to any person owning a simple farm. That would account for a vast amount of a Medieval's Country population.

Regarding the Constitution. again it's just speculation on my part, but there is no evidence to sustain either point. There are a lot of things in game that aren't mentioned yet we know are there.

Addai: When you get past your narrow viewpoint that Loghain is a complete and utter idiot, I will be open to discuss with you.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 06 septembre 2010 - 10:00 .