156 réponses à ce sujet

[Esbatty]

I find having the middle class uprisers kidnapped and sold to Tevinter slavers is the most humane thing to do.

[Costin_Razvan]

Obviously they constitute a pretty powerful section of the population, and a resistant one. But I think we are mixing terms here. When I say freeholders, I include the banns. They are, after all, only the leaders among other freeholders. This is your constituency. And you're going to murder them?

And I don't, Freeholders are simple farmers who have no kind of troops and rely on minor banns for protection among the Bannorn.

Two men alone? LOL They only gained traction when the populace began to rise up. What you are proposing is to repeat Loghain's mistakes from Origins. Look how well that worked out for him. Oh, and Loghain won some battles with the bannorn, not the war.

Some? He won every single battle if what the innkeepers are something to go, he lost in politics once the Warden got involved at the Landsmeet.

And you are the one making the same mistake at him. If you believe you can just sit back and let the Bannorn fight among themselves and then interfere with troops if things get out hand without them uniting to fight you, then you are simply sodding mistaken.

Well therein lies the main problem.

My problem? "Laughs" My Addai you are so naive in politics, but tell me, how is your precious conservative attitude going to stop Fereldan from entering another Civil War after the Blight? Because it most certainly is going to.

And no, I don't have a problem. I round up the Bannorn at the Landsmeet and kill them all at the same time while sending my armies to take all their territory. No leadership no resistance to me dividing the Bannorn among the Arls, High Banns ( Alfansa for instance ) and Teryns, but please continue telling me that my plan is flawed just because you do not agree with reforming the system or a moral problem with my plan to kill all those idiots at the same time.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 01:23 .

[nos_astra]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
And I don't, Freeholders are simple farmers who have no kind of troops and rely on minor banns for protection among the Bannorn.

The Freeholders are the troops. So when you are trying to overthrow the Bannorn in a war, you ruin the region, killing the banns and freeholders, possibly weakening your own country in the process.

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Some? He won every single battle if what the innkeepers are something to go, he lost in politics once the Warden got involved at the Landsmeet.

Those are rumours. Don't you think this could be attributed to propaganda?

[Costin_Razvan]

The Freeholders are the troops. So when you are trying to overthrow the Bannorn in a war, you ruin the region, killing the banns and freeholders, possibly weakening your own country in the process.

I don't think they are the troops. They are NOT commoners ( who made up the majority of armies in Feudal Armies ), bear that in mind, and I don't need a war to overthrow the Bannorn nor I do plan for one. Troops would only move to secure territory once the Banns are dead.

The way the system works in Fereldan is. The Freeholders pay a tithe to a noble of their choosing ( with no oaths sworn ) and expect protection in return.

Those are rumours. Don't you think this could be attributed to propaganda?

It could be, but if Loghain did not defeat the Bannorn already then how come the Entire Landsmeet save Sighard supports him unless you convince them otherwise?

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 01:35 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Its nobles are part of its people.

Are they?
Ferelden's people can represent themselves and their interests on their own, via guilds and associations and ultimately, representation in the Landsmeet. They don't need the nobles for that.

What the nobles can do in the future is be part of a bicameral Landsmeet. Eradicating the nobility is not my agenda. They will have a new purpose as a moderating check and balance force in a bicameral system.

The bannorn's conflicts rarely spread beyond their own territory.  It is a central authority in Denerim that unleashed civil war.

A nation cannot advance if there are internal armed conflicts all over the place.
And if it doesn't have a central bureaucracy.

You inspire loyalty, you don't demand it.  That never works.

Yes, it does, when you do both. The carrot and the stick.
The nobles only started listening to Maric when Loghain killed that fat noble.

And how is that "Anora's reforms"?  I'm just curious how you place that in her epilogues.

Because that's what the epilogue slide says IIRC.
If someone can post it frm the toolset, that would be appreciated.

BTW how do you know that Ferelden's population wants to be a "power that cannot be ignored"?  That sounds like your ambition, not theirs.  What I gather from them is that they want to be left alone, starting with their own government.

Have you tried living in a third world country that no one cares about? Whose *existential* security is always threatened because of its weakness?
How can Ferelden hope to deter its neighbours from invading again if it remains like this?

Regardless of whose ambition this is, Ferelden becoming a major power is to the benefit of its people.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:31 .

[ddv.rsa]

In the months that followed her coronation, Anora proved herself an adept ruler. Trade agreements with other lands quickly brought new funds into the royal coffers, and with them, the queen saw the capital rebuilt. The army was restored, laws were passed to encourage freeholders to produce sufficient harvests, and plans were conceived for a university.

[nos_astra]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The Freeholders are the troops. So when you are trying to overthrow the Bannorn in a war, you ruin the region, killing the banns and freeholders, possibly weakening your own country in the process.

I don't think they are the troops. They are NOT commoners ( who made up the majority of armies in Feudal Armies ), bear that in mind, and I don't need a war to overthrow the Bannorn nor I do plan for one. Troops would only move to secure territory once the Banns are dead.

What do you think those armies come from? Every bann can afford a standing army? Not in the Bannorn. I thought feudal armies mean that you owed your liege lord military service.

Modifié par klarabella, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:43 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

ddv.rsa wrote...

In the months that followed her coronation, Anora proved herself an adept ruler. Trade agreements with other lands quickly brought new funds into the royal coffers, and with them, the queen saw the capital rebuilt. The army was restored, laws were passed to encourage freeholders to produce sufficient harvests, and plans were conceived for a university.

Right, it mentionned the freeholders specifically, not the middle class in general. Ok thanks.

Still, trade = middle class, and freeholders can be considered middle class or potential middle class as they are not peasants.
And the university will probably do that as well.

And this brings us back to my earlier point. Denerim must establish more direct relations with the freeholders themselves, while slowly marginalising the nobles as buffer. So yea, that's the way to go.
Encourage the freeholders to be more active and productive.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:48 .

[Costin_Razvan]

What do you think those armies come from? Every bann can afford a standing army? Not in the Bannorn. I thought feudal armies mean that you owed your liege lord military service.

Yes, feudal armies worked on that principle, but Fereldan does not have a feudal system. The banns are not liege lords for the Freeholders as the Freeholders swear no oaths and are not bound in any way to an individual Bann.



So yes, each Bann has his own troops.

And this brings us back to my earlier point. Denerim must establish more direct relations with the freeholders themselves, while marginalising the nobles as buffer. So yea, that's the way to go.

Encourage the freeholders to be more active and productive.

Getting rid of the nobles themselves would also solve that. The Freeholders would have to rely on the protection of the Arls/Teryns/High Banns and more importantly the Crown itself.

[nos_astra]

ddv.rsa wrote...

In the months that followed her coronation, Anora proved herself an adept ruler. Trade agreements with other lands quickly brought new funds into the royal coffers, and with them, the queen saw the capital rebuilt. The army was restored, laws were passed to encourage freeholders to produce sufficient harvests, and plans were conceived for a university.

I don't think laws will help growing crops on blighted earth. I could see this work for the part of the country that wasn't touched by the Blight, but the south and part of the Bannorn up to the Western Hills (Arl Wulff) are probably in very bad condition.

Many people have fled, Amaranthine and Highever should be full of refugees, many have left entirely for the Free Marches.

I think there's a lot of potential for unrest, especially for Anora as Loghain's daughter. It's probably one of the reasons they are turning to Redcliffe with it's position in the east and their connections to Orlais.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Getting rid of the nobles themselves would also solve that. The Freeholders would have to rely on the protection of the Arls/Teryns/High Banns and more importantly the Crown itself.

I prefer less abrupt methods.
Ferelden is not equipped with a central bureaucracy capable of governing the entire country once eliminating the nobles creates a big void.

I prefer slow, steady reform and I believe that the nopbility can have a purpose in the future, in a bycameral system.

Remember, there is also a slight problem. If you make Teyrns and Arls too powerful, they might challenge the Crown. They can become like the Seljuqs, Buyids, Samanids and other Sultanates that essentially took power from the Abbassid Caliphs and ruled semi-independently, because they were too powerful.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 02:55 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
I think there's a lot of potential for unrest, especially for Anora as Loghain's daughter. It's probably one of the reasons they are turning to Redcliffe with it's position in the east and their connections to Orlais.

This happens even with Alistair as king. Anora has little to do with it.

[Addai]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

My problem? "Laughs" My Addai you are so naive in politics, but tell me, how is your precious conservative attitude going to stop Fereldan from entering another Civil War after the Blight? Because it most certainly is going to.

And no, I don't have a problem. I round up the Bannorn at the Landsmeet and kill them all at the same time while sending my armies to take all their territory. No leadership no resistance to me dividing the Bannorn among the Arls, High Banns ( Alfansa for instance ) and Teryns, but please continue telling me that my plan is flawed just because you do not agree with reforming the system or a moral problem with my plan to kill all those idiots at the same time.

LOL  I'm sorry, I simply can't take you seriously.  Should never have entered into this discussion after you used a N**i reference in a positive way.  Enjoy your dreams of murderous power grabs.

[nos_astra]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Yes, feudal armies worked on that principle, but Fereldan does not have a feudal system. The banns are not liege lords for the Freeholders as the Freeholders swear no oaths and are not bound in any way to an individual Bann.

So yes, each Bann has his own troops.

You're right. Never understood how that was supposed to work, obviously.

Banns (DAO wiki)
Each freehold chooses the bann or arl to whom it pays allegiance. Typically, this choice is made based on proximity of the freehold to the lord’s castle, as it’s rarely worthwhile to pay for the upkeep of soldiers who will arrive at your land too late to defend it. For the most part, each generation of freeholders casts their lot with the same bann as their fathers did, but things can and do change. No formal oaths are sworn, and it is not unheard of, especially in the prickly central Bannorn, for banns to court freeholders away from their neighbors, a practice that inevitably begins feuds that can last for ages.

Modifié par klarabella, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:03 .

[Wulfram]

The landsmeet is potentially an excellent tool to coopt the bannorn into supporting the government.



Calling regular landsmeets, as well as allowing the monarchy to keep in contact with their concerns, allows you to secure their support for government policies and keeps the Bannorn thinking in Ferelden terms rather than local.

[Costin_Razvan]

I prefer less abrupt methods.
Ferelden is not equipped with a central bureaucracy capable of governing the entire country once eliminating the nobles creates a big void.

I prefer slow, steady reform and I believe that the nopbility can have a purpose in the future, in a bycameral system.

Remember, there is also a slight problem. If you make Teyrns and Arls too powerful, they might challenge the Crown. They can become like the Seljuqs, Buyids, Samanids and other Sultanates that essentially took power from the Abbassid Caliphs and ruled semi-independently, because they were too powerful.

I would agree with you, if not for the fact that I do not trust the Bannorn to serve Fereldan's interesets, not now not ever.

I do however trust Alfansa, Sighard, Wulf, Bryland and Fergus ( and maybe even Eamon ) to look for Fereldan's future. I am perfectly fine with dividing the country between them + the Crown and getting rid of the Bannorn...for now.

I ain't a fan of the plan you are setting in motion, mostly because I see large faults with a Democratic system like that. ( Giving the Guilds power will raise some issues in the long run ).

Addai: Good, then stay out of it if you please. Someone with Harrowmont's take on leadership will only lead her country to disaster.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:24 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...
I think there's a lot of potential for unrest, especially for Anora as Loghain's daughter. It's probably one of the reasons they are turning to Redcliffe with it's position in the east and their connections to Orlais.

This happens even with Alistair as king. Anora has little to do with it.

Sure, it happens. The question is, who is better equipped to deal with it. Alistair is the one with the "common touch", the one who can inspire loyalty. Maybe he could unite them for a common goal, rebuilding Ferelden.
Anora is the one who would complain about the stupid Bannorn and try to overthrow them.

Imagine how a law to encourage sufficient harvest would go over with the freeholders and banns who don't have fertile land left to grow anything on. Especially since the Bannorn are the fertile lowlands of Ferelden, there is little else than agriculture and everything was destroyed by the Blight. Who do you think they would follow readily through a time of deprivation - the Grey Warden King who risked his life to gather armies and end Loghain's ill-advised regency or Loghain's daughter?

Modifié par klarabella, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:26 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Alistair relies on Eamon for an advisor, and Eamon is plotting against him. Bear that in mind.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:27 .

[nos_astra]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Alistair relies on Eamon for an advisor, and Eamon is plotting against him. Bear that in mind.

I didn't play Witch Hunt, so I might be wrong, but it would seem the Bannorn looking to Redcliffe for guidance is only dangerous for Anora, not for Alistair.

Why would Eamon oppose the King he put on the throne and does adivse anyway? It's a perfect situation. Eamon can keep the Bannorn in check until the crown has earned their trust again.

Modifié par klarabella, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:34 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
Sure, it happens. The question is, who is better equipped to deal with it. Alistair is the one with the "common touch", the one who can inspire loyalty. Maybe he could unite them for a common goal, rebuilding Ferelden.
Anora is the one who would complain about the stupid Bannorn and try to overthrow them.

It's the one who can manage and acquire ressources that is better equipped of course.
"Inspiration" doesn't work with empty bellies, except for revolts.

klarabella wrote...
Imagine how a law to encourage sufficient harvest would go over with the freeholders and banns who don't have fertile land left to grow anything on. Especially since the Bannorn are the fertile lowlands of Ferelden, there is little else than agriculture and everything was destroyed by the Blight. Who do you think they would follow readily through a time of deprivation

And since the Crown's treasury is being filled with trade money, it will have ressources sufficient enough to mount a collective rebuilding project.

Why would they follow someone who brings no influx of wealth over one who does?

And it's the exact same thing in Witch hunt for Alistair.
And its dangerous after Eamon and Alistair's deaths. The Bannorn becoming united with Redcliffe as their center of power, could essentially split Ferelden in two.  This is a long term potential threat.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:40 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
I ain't a fan of the plan you are setting in motion, mostly because I see large faults with a Democratic system like that. ( Giving the Guilds power will raise some issues in the long run ).

Power that is represented and included is not much of a threat.

It's not so much a democracy I am seeking. I admit, I am very business oriented and I believe that a system with proper checks and balances and with the rule of law can provide the best (but not only) environment for business.

I personally prefer a consititutional monarchy. But this is with slow and steady reforms for the future. Not now.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 03:51 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It's the one who can manage and acquire ressources that is better equipped of course.
"Inspiration" doesn't work with empty bellies, except for revolts.

No, the one who can do both is best equipped.

And since the Crown's treasury is being filled with trade money, it will have ressources sufficient enough to mount a collective rebuilding project.

Rebuilding Denerim won't help the Bannorn one bit. And the university could be considered an offense.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Why would they follow someone who brings no influx of wealth over one who does?

Whoever said Alistair's rule will never bring an influx of wealth? Because it wasn't mentioned in those three lines of epilogue?

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And it's the exact same thing in Witch hunt for Alistair.

Of course, it is. The country is devastated, people are starving, harvests are sparse. The Bannorn mistrust the Crown, simple as that.

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
And its dangerous after Eamon and Alistair's deaths. The Bannorn becoming united with Redcliffe as their center of power, could essentially split Ferelden in two.  This is a long term potential threat.

That's assuming this situation can't be solved before Eamon or Alistair die.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
It's the one who can manage and acquire ressources that is better equipped of course.
"Inspiration" doesn't work with empty bellies, except for revolts.

No, the one who can do both is best equipped.

And Anora being of commoner origin and being pro-middle class and encouraging to the freeholders, could have that inspiration (and the money to back it up). In addition to her being popular amongst most nobles.

klarabella wrote...
Rebuilding Denerim won't help the Bannorn one bit. And the university could be considered an offense.

Rebuilding Denerim is the first step. It's a port city (the most inhabited) necessary for trade, which is necessary for the country.
In the mean time, the Crown can alleviate the bannorn's problems with aid and the extra harvests that some freeholders are producing can be redistributed to the lands that need it most.

And of course, education is always seen as an offense by the barbaric.

Whoever said Alistair's rule will never bring an influx of wealth? Because it wasn't mentioned in those three lines of epilogue?

"Whoever said Anora's rule will never provide inspiration? Because it wasn't mentioned in those three lines of epilogue?"

Anora should be popular with the merchants, freeholders, artisans..etc and is already popular amongst the nobles.

That's assuming this situation can't be solved before Eamon or Alistair die.

So you're saying that when it's solved, the Guerrins would gracefully throw away their newly acquired power (essentially leading half the country)? Eh, why would they do that?

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 04:07 .

[Wulfram]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So you're saying that when it's solved, the Guerrins would gracefully throw away their newly acquired power (essentially leading half the country)? Eh, why would they do that?

Because they're the obvious candidates to inherit the throne themselves?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

So you're saying that when it's solved, the Guerrins would gracefully throw away their newly acquired power (essentially leading half the country)? Eh, why would they do that?

Because they're the obvious candidates to inherit the throne themselves?

Are they? The Couslands are also canditates. Especially in a Ferelden saved by a Cousland whose decisions increased the power of the family.