156 réponses à ce sujet

[ddv.rsa]

@KoP: What happens when Anora dies?

[KnightofPhoenix]

ddv.rsa wrote...

@KoP: What happens when Anora dies?

Either she has a direct heir.
Or, as I planned for my playthrough, the Couslands would get the throne.

[Corker]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

One important thing though. Those islands near Fereldan need to be reclaimed from the Pirates that inhabit them.

If one of them's named 'Runnymede,' you'd best stay clear of it.

[mousestalker]

Aren't the methods of Elizabeth I preferable to those of Vlad the Impaler? They're cheaper in lives and money, certainly. If Anora could be persuaded to dye her hair a bit redder, she could do a fabulous Gloriana impression.

[Costin_Razvan]

Aren't the methods of Elizabeth I preferable to those of Vlad the Impaler? They're cheaper in lives and money, certainly. If Anora could be persuaded to dye her hair a bit redder, she could do a fabulous Gloriana impression.

Depends on personal preference.



In Romania Vlad the Impaler is viewed as a national hero rather then a murderer.

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
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.

That's not at all how she is characterized in the game. Anora does have flaws, you know. You idolize her.

She's also the daughter of Loghain, especially the Bannorn won't forget who ruined them.

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.

Highever and Amaranthine are port cities, too. Unlike Denerim they still have an intact infrastructure. And I doubt that Denerim is the most inhabited city in Ferelden after the Blight, I'd say it's Amaranthine.

You'll have to import grain, I doubt the harvests in Ferelden will be enough.

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

And by the starving. Not saying the plans for a university are wrong, just telling you you probably won't be able to sell it to the people very soon. Ferelden is a poor country after the Blight.

I still wonder what kind of trade agreement is supposed to fill the royal coffers. What could Ferelden export?

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

That depends on how much she's able to reign in her ambitions after the Blight. Is she patient enough to let the country recover or will she try to force reforms on the country at all costs?

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?

What newly aquired power? Eamon was considered the most powerful noble before the Blight and still refused the throne. If Teagan manages to produce an heir this child would certainly be a candidate to inherit Alistair's throne, his only contestant is Fergus. Fergus won't necessdarily oppose the Guerrins, he could, maybe he will, or maybe the Guerrins will support the Couslands because they are traditionalists.

Modifié par klarabella, 01 novembre 2010 - 04:49 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Aren't the methods of Elizabeth I preferable to those of Vlad the Impaler? They're cheaper in lives and money, certainly. If Anora could be persuaded to dye her hair a bit redder, she could do a fabulous Gloriana impression.

Depends on personal preference.

In Romania Vlad the Impaler is viewed as a national hero rather then a murderer.

Also the vast majority of claims that make him out to be a monster gave from his enemies and political foes rather than from first hand accounts.

Although impaling 20,000 people to scare off an another army, yikes. 
It worked but, damn.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
That's not at all how she is characterized in the game. Anora does have flaws, you know. You idolize her.

Yes, she is. the Landsmeet is perfectly fine with her being Queen and the nobles in the tavern were very skepitcal of Alistair (and read codex entry bellow).

And I know she has flaws. Alistair has them too. "You idolize him".

Highever and Amaranthine are port cities, too. Unlike Denerim they still have an intact infrastructure. And I doubt that Denerim is the most in habited city in Ferelden after the Blight, I'd say it's Amaranthine.

They are part of the Coastlands and not the Bannorn. And that's why I suggested a strong alliance between the Coastland lords.

klarabella wrote...
You'll have to import grain, I doubt the harvests in Ferelden will be enough.

Trade, which is what Anora is doing.

klarabella wrote...
And by the starving. Not saying the plans for a university are wrong, just telling you you probably won't be able to seel it to the people. Ferelden is a poor country after the Blight.

For the moment, it's plans to concieve a university. It isn't done yet.

klarabella wrote...
I still wonder what kind of trade agreement is supposed to fill the royal coffers. What could Ferelden export?

Minerals from Amaranthine. Other kinds of goods. We don't know the details of the country.
What we do know is that the royal treasury was filled, as per the epilogue so it obviously has something to export.

No, because of how Anora was presented in the game.

And how was she presented in the game?

Codex entry:
"The only child of the war hero Loghain Mac Tir, Anora has never been one to stay quietly in the background. It is common knowledge that in the five years Anora and Cailan held the throne together, she was the one wielding the power. She is held in much higher esteem than her husband by the people of Ferelden, nobility and commoners alike, and commands the respect even of foreign nations, having once inspired Empress Celene of Orlais to declare, "Anora of Ferelden is a solitary rose among brambles.""

That depends on how much she's able to reign in her ambitions after the Blight. Is she patient enough to let the country recover or will she try to force reforms on the country at all costs?

She is smart and pragmatic. She'll do what is needed.

What newly aquired power? Eamon was considered the most powerful noble before the Blight and still refused the throne. If Teagan manages to produce an heir this child would certainly be a candidate to inherit Alistair's throne, his only contestant is Fergus. Fergus won't necessdarily oppose the Guerrins, he could, maybe he will, or maybe the Guerrins will support the Couslands because they are traditionalists.

No, that was Bryce Cousland. Eamon is an Arl of a fishing village. The Couslands are Teyrns of a seaport city.

And what newly acquired power you ask? You mean the bannorn unifying under Redcliffe's banner is not a newly acquired huge amount of power?

And maybe both the Couslands and Guerrins will clash. So I'd rather not base everything on maybes and deal with the problem before it gets out of hand.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:02 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Although impaling 20,000 people to scare off an another army, yikes.
It worked but, damn.

"Chuckle." Well that was an extreme case, but Romanians have always been masters as psychological and guerrilla warfare.

Invading our country in Ancient and Medieval times has always amounted to: Poisoned Wells, burned farmland, animals relocated to other parts so that an invading army has no way to gather food.

Ambushes and constant raiding parties on supply trains. Night attacks, assassination attempts on enemy leaders and then that was just the prelude before you came before our main armies at the spot of OUR choosing: In narrow passes where the enemy numbers ( largely outnumbering us ) would matter for squat.

The Ottoman Empire at it's height of power tried to conquer us, they got crushed time and time again until we decided to join as vassals.

We're just stubborn ****s like that.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:06 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...
That's not at all how she is characterized in the game. Anora does have flaws, you know. You idolize her.

Yes, she is. the Landsmeet is perfectly fine with her being Queen and the nobles in the tavern were very skepitcal of Alistair (and read codex entry bellow).

And I know she has flaws. Alistair has them too. "You idolize him".

*snort*
Yeah, I idolize Alistair. Absolutely. That's why I ended up with two canon endings, one that has Anora as solo Queen and Loghain killing the AD and one with Alistair maried to Anora. I so idolize him.

No, I don't. Alistair is very dependent on advisors, chancellor or his wife because he is completely untried. It doesn't mean he's going to fail and some problems are still less likely to occur for him. (Like Redcliffe being a threat.)

I simply don't like to glorify Anora, and to be honest I very much doubt Bioware is going to do you and Costin the favour and turn Ferelden into the rising star of Thedas that shrugs of a Blight and goes through two centuries worth of reforms within 25 years, so you can indulge your fantasies of being Ferelden's saviour.

Modifié par klarabella, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:14 .

[Wulfram]

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

The Couslands are the other alternative, but if the PC hasn't been making a point of putting them forward then the Guerrins are in a stronger position.  I don't see Fergus as a particularly likely candidate - he doesn't seem the political type, and IIRC there are suggestions his sibling was seen as the likely candidate to take over the Teyrnir.  While the Warden him/herself has a limited lifespan and fertility, so they would only really be a stopgap.

Plus, if the Guerrins have secured the support of the Bannorn then they've put obviously put themselves in pole position for the landsmeet.

[Costin_Razvan]

I simply don't like to glorify Anora and to be honest,l I very much doubt Bioware is going to do you and Costin the favour and turn Ferelden into the rising star in Thedas that shrugs of a Blight and goes through two centuries woth of reforms within 25 years, so you can indulge your fantasies of being Ferelden's saviour.

And when did we say it would? This are just our plans, our Wardens however vanish with Morrigan forever.

I have always been perfectly aware that the choices of my Wardens would never really amount to much, doesn't mean I can't argue of what I would do if I was in charge.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:13 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Although impaling 20,000 people to scare off an another army, yikes.
It worked but, damn.

"Chuckle." Well that was an extreme case, but Romanians have always been masters as psychological and guerrilla warfare.

Invading our country in Ancient and Medieval times has always amounted to: Poisoned Wells, burned farmland, animals relocated to other parts so that an invading army has no way to gather food.

Ambushes and constant raiding parties on supply trains. Night attacks, assassination attempts on enemy leaders and then that was just the prelude before you came before our main armies at the spot of OUR choosing: In narrow passes where the enemy numbers ( largely outnumbering us ) would matter for squat.

The Ottoman Empire at it's height of power tried to conquer us, they got crushed time and time again until we decided to join as vassals.

We're just stubborn ****s like that.

People get the VLAD THE IMPALER thing stuck in there head too much.

He did an impressive job keeping a small nation going against a lot of foes.
However this is the image that people seem to think of when you mention his name:
http://en.wikipedia....ile:Impaled.gif

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

klarabella wrote...
That's not at all how she is characterized in the game. Anora does have flaws, you know. You idolize her.

Yes, she is. the Landsmeet is perfectly fine with her being Queen and the nobles in the tavern were very skepitcal of Alistair (and read codex entry bellow).

And I know she has flaws. Alistair has them too. "You idolize him".

*snort*
Yeah, I idolize Alistair. Absolutely. That's why I ended up with two canon endings, one that has Anora as solo Queen and Loghain killing the AD and one with Alistair maried to Anora. I so idolize him.

No, I don't. Alistair is very dependent on advisors, chancellor or his wife because he is completely untried. It doesn't mean he's going to fail and some problems are less likely to occur for him.

I know you don't. That's why I had it written in quotation marks, sarcastically. Because two can play at this game. You accused me of idolizing Anora, when I don't. If you hadn't, I wouldn't have mentionned it. 

Some other problems are less likely to occur to Anora.

klarabella wrote...
I simply don't like to glorify Anora and to be honest, I very much doubt Bioware is going to do you and Costin the favour and turn Ferelden into the rising star of Thedas that shrugs of a Blight and goes through two centuries worth of reforms within 25 years, so you can indulge your fantasies of being Ferelden's saviour.

If you read what I said carefully, I stressed that this is going to be slow and steady reform that will need a good foundational basis. I never claimed this will take a few decades.

And if Bioware doesn't, then it doesn't. Oh well.
It doesn't make this any less fun of an excercize.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:18 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...
The Couslands are the other alternative, but if the PC hasn't been making a point of putting them forward then the Guerrins are in a stronger position.  I don't see Fergus as a particularly likely candidate - he doesn't seem the political type, and IIRC there are suggestions his sibling was seen as the likely candidate to take over the Teyrnir.  While the Warden him/herself has a limited lifespan and fertility, so they would only really be a stopgap.

Plus, if the Guerrins have secured the support of the Bannorn then they've put obviously put themselves in pole position for the landsmeet.

Well remember that Eamon's line is broken regardless of choice and Teagan might not even marry. He's already old (30s) and if he dies prematurely, his heir might be too young.

So I'd say it's still contentious. The Couslands can also have the support of the coastlands, are already Teyrns and have a port city (vs a fishing village).

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:19 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KoP has the right idea, in general. The pen is mightier than the sword, and far more beneficial for the long term.



Sorry, Costin, your rather bloodthirsty strategy would ruin Ferelden. Violent, bloody dictatorships never leave good legacies, culturally, financially, and socially. Slaughtering the Banns might be a short term solution. In the long term, you ask for ruin. A good leader thinks in the long term, not the short term.



I personally think letting the Bannorn fight amongst themselves is a good thing. Let them continue their petty wars. Wars bring hardship and poverty to the common folk, who will get tired of living in a perpetual war zone, pack up shop, and move on to greener, less bloodier pastures. Like Highever or Amaranthine. With added financial and social incentives given to refugees for relocating and swearing fealty to the coastal lands, the power and productivity of the Bannorn will decrease signifigantly. Those Banns with any sense will do likewise, since their own power base will be collapsing. Those too stupid will continue to fight and kill each other off, until nothing is left to fight.



People go where the money is. Killing off the Banns creates a major power vacuum, and is probably not going to earn you the loyalty of the freeholders. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.



As far as Redcliffe is concerned, it's pretty insignifigant in the larger scheme of things. It's just a fishing village. It carries strategic importance, but little to no financial influence. If the freeholders are coaxed into giving their loyalty elsewhere, then the Banns really have nothing, since freeholders are their source of wealth and power.



And KoP is right in that ferelden needs to become a world power of its own. Becoming an economic and military power is always a good thing for a country, because when you become a power, you also end up being a less attractive target for invasion or domination by outside forces.



A simple and blunt example is the US. Why hasn't anyone tried to invade or dominate the US in over 100 years? Because doing so would be suicide in more ways than one. Being a military and economic power buys your country the freedom to exist. Period.

[Costin_Razvan]

Sorry, Costin, your rather bloodthirsty strategy would ruin Ferelden. Violent, bloody dictatorships never leave good legacies, culturally, financially, and socially. Slaughtering the Banns might be a short term solution. In the long term, you ask for ruin. A good leader thinks in the long term, not the short term.

Really? Tell that to the Mongol Empire.

Slaughtering the Banns is only the start, if you noticed this thread is called "Dealing with the Bannorn." Not "What are your complete plans for Fereldan's future."

My plan is to create an absolutist Monarchy, and then eventually transform it into a benevolent Dictatorship. Like Knight I have trade interests, but I would keep a tight leash on the Merchant Guilds so that they don't gain too much power.

The short term plan is to remove the Bannorn and divide the country between the 7 High Nobles. The Freeholders would have to rely on them+ The Crown for Protection. I doubt the Freeholders would have a problem with this, and would welcome stability instead of the constant feuding by the Banns.

 A simple and blunt example is the US. Why hasn't anyone tried to invade or dominate the US in over 100 years? Because doing so would be suicide in more ways than one. Being a military and economic power buys your country the freedom to exist. Period.

Because the US tried to keep neutral in many conflicts for a very long time of it's history and nations ignored trying to spark a war with them when they had other enemies to deal with.

After World War II Stalin did not it because he did not see a point when he controlled half the World. He had reached his political goal that he had set prior to the war.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:28 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I know you don't. That's why I had it written in quotation marks, sarcastically. Because two can play at this game. You accused me of idolizing Anora, when I don't. If you hadn't, I wouldn't have mentionned it. 

Some other problems are less likely to occur to Anora.

Ah, okay. Point taken.

And yes, you're right.

If you read what I said carefully, I stressed that this is going to be slow and steady reform that will need a good foundational basis. I never claimed this will take a few decades.

Oh, okay. I didn't read that carefully then, I have missed that.

And if Bioware doesn't, then it doesn't. Oh well. It doesn't make this any less fun of an excercize.

Agreed.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Sorry, Costin, your rather bloodthirsty strategy would ruin Ferelden. Violent, bloody dictatorships never leave good legacies, culturally, financially, and socially. Slaughtering the Banns might be a short term solution. In the long term, you ask for ruin. A good leader thinks in the long term, not the short term.

Really? Tell that to the Mongol Empire.

Well as an Arab, I am tempted to say "F*** Them!" 

Eh, the Mongols left little legacy outside their own lands and at the end of the day, 3 of their 4 kingdoms converted to Islam and embraced the clearly superior culture.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:26 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Eh, the Mongols left little legacy outside their own lands and at the end of the day, 3 of their 4 kingdoms concerted to Islam and embraced the clearly superior culture.

But in their own lands, what the Mongols did clearly had a good impact on them.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

If you read what I said carefully, I stressed that this is going to be slow and steady reform that will need a good foundational basis. I never claimed this will take a few decades.

Oh, okay. I didn't read that carefully then, I have missed that.

Well I didn't stress it as much as I would have liked, sorry.

I did say it here to Costin

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 nobility can have a purpose in the future, in a bycameral system.

So it's something that will require many decades and centuries.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 01 novembre 2010 - 05:30 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Really? Tell that to the Mongol Empire.

The Mongol empire crumbled and plit apart not very long after Ghengis Khan died. It crumbled and lost its influence. Many people were eager to break away from the Mongols because they weren't exactly the most loved of rulers.

Because the US tried to keep neutral in many conflicts for a very long time of it's history and nations ignored trying to spark a war with them when they had other enemies to deal with.

Neuterality didn't save Denmark, the Netherlands, or Belguim from getting invaded. Why? They had not the power to  turn away the Wehrmacht. Switzerland kept it's neutrality because it had a big enough stick to threaten the ****s with: money. Plus the fact that they had a very well armed and educated populace who would have been blowing up important train lines and supply tunnels the ****s relied on.

You also speak of the past, before the US was a world power. During the American civil war, the European powers were actually considering getting involved, and maybe even reclaiming some of their lost colonial assets in the process. But they didn't. Why? Ironically, the Russian empire threatened to blockade their shipping if they interfered. But back then, there really would have been little on the US side to stop a well organized and funded European invasion.

Now to the present. The US now has many enemies, and sadly, no longer stays neutral in conflicts. And it has many enemies as a result. Yet no nation in their right mind would declare war on and invade us at this point in history (psycho religous fanatics do not count, as they are not a recognized political entity like a nation is). Why?

Because we have the power and money at this point, and thus, the influence. These things buy you the freedom to exist unmolested. In the days of empire, until WW1, the only way anyone would attack a major imperial power, such as Britain, would be another empire, such as France (Napoleon). He failed, yet britain did not invade France, either. Why? France was very wealthy and powerful itself.

After World War II Stalin did not it because he did not see a point when he controlled half the World. He had reached his political goal that he had set prior to the war.

A stupid one, too. It was Stalins idiotic brutality that set the stage for the Russians to be invaded by the ****s in the first place. It was only Hitler's idiotic timing and bizarre tactics that saved Soviet Russia. The Germans were vastly superior in technology and wealth, and were set to wipe out the Soviet forces. Stalin's brutality and murderous rule had made him so many enemies, that the ****s found tons and tons of Soviet citizens eager to collaborate with the invaders because they hated Stalin and his brutality, as well as hated the loss of their independance in cases such as Ukraine and Lithiuania. Stalin's idocy kept his country a backwaters dump, and the only reason the Soviet Union became a superpower was because somehow, it was left standing after the war. He did not control half the world, only Europe. It was really Kruschev that kept the country from rapid decline.

But in the end, it was for naught, and the Soviet empire went into decline and eventually, dissolved. Why? Because they remained relatively confined by backwards ideas and policies. Money is as powerful a weapon as a bomb, and innovation is the key to developoing and keeping this weapon. Though the Russians made some terrific advancements in their time of the Soviet Union, they were decades behind the West, where money was an incentive to progress and invention, and thus, leading to the building of more powerful weapons, more productive and politically stable populations, ect. Thus, the Soviets ended up lagging even in the technological department, and their military was vastly inferior.

[Costin_Razvan]

The Mongol empire crumbled and plit apart not very long after Ghengis Khan died. It crumbled and lost its influence. Many people were eager to break away from the Mongols because they weren't exactly the most loved of rulers.

Somewhat irrelevant to my point: Which is that Ghenkis Khan vastly improved the situation for Mongolia, and state what you will, but it did happen.

As for the usual american BS that I have heard so many times over, I will just state two things: One, it's off-topic as comparing modern times to Medieval Ones, two American has no enemies save terrorists. There is a strong anti-american sentiment among many people, but that doesn't equal to people want to wipe America off the of the earth or some other BS.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 01 novembre 2010 - 06:16 .

[Xilizhra]

The Mongol empire crumbled and plit apart not very long after Ghengis Khan died. It crumbled and lost its influence. Many people were eager to break away from the Mongols because they weren't exactly the most loved of rulers.

Actually, it took quite a while. It was a dynamic and expanding force for many years after Genghis Khan's death, only really losing its momentum when Ogedai Khan died on campaign and the entire army had to go home to choose a new khan. And Kublai Khan's Yuan Dynasty in China was a solid dynasty for a fair amount of time as well.

A stupid one, too. It was Stalins idiotic brutality that set the stage for the Russians to be invaded by the ****s in the first place. It was only Hitler's idiotic timing and bizarre tactics that saved Soviet Russia. The Germans were vastly superior in technology and wealth, and were set to wipe out the Soviet forces. Stalin's brutality and murderous rule had made him so many enemies, that the ****s found tons and tons of Soviet citizens eager to collaborate with the invaders because they hated Stalin and his brutality, as well as hated the loss of their independance in cases such as Ukraine and Lithiuania.

Not totally accurate. There were plenty of Axis collaborators at first, but the Wehrmacht conducted itself so horribly in Operation Barbarossa (Slavs weren't thought of as being really human) that even the people who hated Stalin (of whom there were many) threw themselves wholeheartedly into the fight for revenge. And the Union wasn't a backwater dump; Stalin's rapid industrialization gave it the base for a very sizable army and was really one of the major things that saved it.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Somewhat irrelevant to my point: Which is that Ghenkis Khan vastly improved the situation for Mongolia, and state what you will, but it did happen.

Briefly. Brief improvements are as signifigant as a fart in a thunderstorm. In the long term, things were not improved much, and Mongolis slid away, to be later dominated by superior powers.

As for the usual american BS that I have heard so many times over, I will just state two things: One, it's off-topic as comparing modern times to Medieval Ones, two American has no enemies save terrorists. There is a strong anti-american sentiment among many people, but that doesn't equal to people want to wipe America off the of the earth or some other BS.

Try paying attention. It costs nothing.

There is nothing off topic about this. Wealth and power are the keys to existing freely without interference. It has nothing to do with Medieval, ancient, or modern societies: it has been a constant throught the ages. Invention and wealth do not thrive under brutal, bloody regimes. The greatest empires in history were the most moderate of their times. The Roman empire lasted for 1000 years, because its policies and practices encouraged trade and growth amongst its subjects. While they weren't afraid to use military force if they had to, they succeeded more in encouraging conquered peoples to become citizens, thus gaining rights and opportunities they wouldn't have. This encouraged more loyalty in general to Rome. And even after the empire collapsed, its legacy is still the most important one for Europe and its former colonies.

The Romans did so through a balance of incentive and force when incentive failed. And they prospered because of it. The same example could be said for Moorish Spain. The Moors, who were far more tolerant and even handed than the European powers of the time, managed to hold on to the Iberian penninsula for 800 years, once being the richest country in Western Europe, as well as the most advanced and civilized. And their legacy is still strong and present in Iberia, as well as the many lands colonized by Spain and Portugal at one time.