Kahlmulandr wrote...
Costin_Razvan wrote...
What evidence? The priest was the one responsible for poisoning the cup and while Stennis might have known about it he certainly didn't agree to it.
You can uncover enough evidence to ascertain that he aided the priest...heck he even admits it in the later chapter if you let him live
That's not true. It was the medieval system that spawned guilds of tradesmen, lay societies associated with the church that promoted local enterprise and women's rights, and mercantile societies that allowed the upward mobility of the middle class. These declined or were in some cases entirely eliminated in the early modern period with the resurgence of Roman law and more authoritarian monarchies. The modern state provided correctives, but those were correctives to problems that modernism itself brought on, not the feudal system.KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Furthermore, the North in the Witcher does not seem inspired by the Germanic model of Feudalism (which certainly was not the champion of the common man's rights either).
And I disagree that centralized monarchies were more oppressive of common people. They were oppressive yes, but generally towards the nobility. But they offered avenues of social mobility, while small yes, that were not present before.
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Seboist wrote...
Great analysis there knight, except for one thing, I could have sworn TW1 mentions the Order having a presence in Redania and Radovid using his troops to deal with them there.
Oh and nice use of your favorite Philippa shot.
"[i]urthermore, the author believes that Redanian intentionally refused
to grant a charter to the main commandery of the Order, thus preventing a
strong organization from planting roots within the country's borders."
Addai67 wrote...
That's not true. It was the medieval system that spawned guilds of tradesmen, lay societies associated with the church that promoted local enterprise and women's rights, and mercantile societies that allowed the upward mobility of the middle class. These declined or were in some cases entirely eliminated in the early modern period with the resurgence of Roman law and more authoritarian monarchies. The modern state provided correctives, but those were correctives to problems that modernism itself brought on, not the feudal system.
Seboist wrote...
Is that from TW2? That retcons this,
Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 06 mai 2012 - 09:37 .
Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 06 mai 2012 - 09:51 .
KnightofPhoenix wrote...
These happened in spite of feudalism and not thanks to it. If the nobles had as much power as they thought was their right, they would have kept the status quo to their favor.
But the point is, they didn't. Feudalism is a system of contracts, and contracts go two ways. Now it's possible to have a contract that heavily favors one side, and there were times where nobles did gain more power and peasant rights declined, leading to civil unrest. There were other times- such as after the Black Death when the labor market favored the laborer- that the working classes won back advantages. However the more hierarchical societies are the ones where nobles could concentrate power. France was one of those, you're right. They kept Romanized law codes. The Anglo-Germanic system had more counterbalances that limited this dynamic, at least until the Renaissance when they too started adopting Roman law.
And Saskia's.Costin_Razvan wrote...
Also I personally I loved the way they did armors, weapons, siege and castles. Very realistic in regards to all of them, except Ves's armor but oh well.
Modifié par Addai67, 06 mai 2012 - 11:48 .
Addai67 wrote...
And Saskia's.Costin_Razvan wrote...
Also I personally I loved the way they did armors, weapons, siege and castles. Very realistic in regards to all of them, except Ves's armor but oh well.
Question for the panel: Letho tells Iorveth, "Don't worry, master elf. I know Geralt. I know his weakness." What is he referring to?
Addai67 wrote...
But the point is, they didn't. Feudalism is a system of contracts, and contracts go two ways. Now it's possible to have a contract that heavily favors one side, and there were times where nobles did gain more power and peasant rights declined, leading to civil unrest. There were other times- such as after the Black Death when the labor market favored the laborer- that the working classes won back advantages. However the more hierarchical societies are the ones where nobles could concentrate power. France was one of those, you're right. They kept Romanized law codes. The Anglo-Germanic system had more counterbalances that limited this dynamic, at least until the Renaissance when they too started adopting Roman law.
I will give you that the Nordlings appear to be more like the Franks and the HRE than Anglo-Saxons or Norse.
hence why I portrayed it as generally oppressive or unjust towards the common man.
Modifié par slimgrin, 07 mai 2012 - 03:25 .
Is this why kingdoms were fighting over it? Anyway being "great" means a lot of senseless slaughter and overreach, so I don't consider it a step up.KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Precisely my point, it depended on the circumstances of the time and not because the system itself naturally benefitted the common man or because the nobility actually gave a damn. Its weakness allowed it to be flexible, but that flexibility stems from a flaw. It turned out to be convenient sometimes, but that doesn't change the fact that the system itself is heavily flawed.
Besides, Britain only became a great nation after it centralized power, before that it was a footnote.
I'm interested to see what sort of government comes out of Saskia's experiment, assuming the whole thing doesn't just collapse.But in any case, as much as I love these discussions, we've had way too many and liek we both agree, the fuedal system of TW2 seems inspired more by continental Europe, hence why I portrayed it as generally oppressive or unjust towards the common man.
Modifié par Addai67, 07 mai 2012 - 01:00 .
slimgrin wrote...
I just had a lengthy and frank talk with Triss after rescuing her from the Nilfgardians. Goddamn, I've missed out by playing just Roche's side. The plot makes so much more sense and I now respect Triss even more. The plot in this game is off the rails complex but still cohesive. Left Phillipa in the dungeon to her fate. Her expressions are so well done too.
Seboist wrote...
slimgrin wrote...
I just had a lengthy and frank talk with Triss after rescuing her from the Nilfgardians. Goddamn, I've missed out by playing just Roche's side. The plot makes so much more sense and I now respect Triss even more. The plot in this game is off the rails complex but still cohesive. Left Phillipa in the dungeon to her fate. Her expressions are so well done too.
I liked the "i'd fight through half the Nilfgaardian army for a friend" line...... it's too bad Geralt doesn't say that about Siegfried.
Costin_Razvan wrote...
What evidence? The priest was the one responsible for poisoning the cup and while Stennis might have known about it he certainly didn't agree to it.
Modifié par M U P P 3 T Z, 07 mai 2012 - 02:12 .
slimgrin wrote...
Seboist wrote...
slimgrin wrote...
I just had a lengthy and frank talk with Triss after rescuing her from the Nilfgardians. Goddamn, I've missed out by playing just Roche's side. The plot makes so much more sense and I now respect Triss even more. The plot in this game is off the rails complex but still cohesive. Left Phillipa in the dungeon to her fate. Her expressions are so well done too.
I liked the "i'd fight through half the Nilfgaardian army for a friend" line...... it's too bad Geralt doesn't say that about Siegfried.
Some of the best lines by Geralt are in that exchange. You finally get a chance to put her on the spot.
Costin_Razvan wrote...
"You have no idea how much I want to believe you."
Modifié par slimgrin, 07 mai 2012 - 03:11 .
Retour en haut
