969 réponses à ce sujet

[Wereparrot]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...


They would have no choice if the crown forced them to integrate. I say this in the say way that the SAS is part of the army, yet not the army; and the SBS and the Royal Marines are part of the navy, yet not actually the navy. The Wardens would be special forces, if you will.

This is a big no. The Wardens and SAS are not reasonable comparisons. The SAS perform their duties as part of the military arm of a soverign government. In otherwords, their alliegance is to a political entity.

The Wardens are not, they are an extranational organization that does not, and will not, swear alliegance to any crown, or any political entity. They are not supposed to fight under any political banner, and bad consequences happen. Nor do they serve the interests of their host nation. They have one purpose only: fighting darkspawn and Blights. And defeating Blights must supercede all political, social, religous, moral, and ethical considerations.

Being part of the army is a no-go.

Which is why the Fereldan branch of the Wardens should be brought under the banner of the army. Ferelden would then have its own means of fighting darkspawn and wouldn't have to rely on a faction bearing neither Ferelden or anyone else allegiance. Surely you don't need me to tell of the dangers involved in granting safe harbour to an organisation which, although not openly hostile, has not sworn fealty?

Modifié par Wereparrot, 14 janvier 2011 - 11:51 .

[ejoslin]

Wereparrot wrote...

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...


They would have no choice if the crown forced them to integrate. I say this in the say way that the SAS is part of the army, yet not the army; and the SBS and the Royal Marines are part of the navy, yet not actually the navy. The Wardens would be special forces, if you will.

This is a big no. The Wardens and SAS are not reasonable comparisons. The SAS perform their duties as part of the military arm of a soverign government. In otherwords, their alliegance is to a political entity.

The Wardens are not, they are an extranational organization that does not, and will not, swear alliegance to any crown, or any political entity. They are not supposed to fight under any political banner, and bad consequences happen. Nor do they serve the interests of their host nation. They have one purpose only: fighting darkspawn and Blights. And defeating Blights must supercede all political, social, religous, moral, and ethical considerations.

Being part of the army is a no-go.

Which is why the Fereldan branch of the Wardens should be brought under the banner of the army. Ferelden would then have its own means of fighting darkspawn and wouldn't have to rely on a faction bearing neither Ferelden or anyone else allegiance. Surely you don't need me to tell of the dangers involved in giving safe harbour to an organisation which, although not openly hostile, has not sworn fealty?

You are assuming that the Gray Wardens would allow this. They would not. So instead, you have no Gray Wardens in Ferelden.  

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Wereparrot wrote...


Which is why the Fereldan branch of the Wardens should be brought under the banner of the army. Ferelden would then have its own means of fighting darkspawn and wouldn't have to rely on a faction bearing neither Ferelden or anyone else allegiance. Surely you don't need me to tell of the dangers involved in granting safe harbour to an organisation which, although not openly hostile, has not sworn fealty?

Dangers? As opposed to forcing an organization that is widely expected to remain politically neutral into the army, thus losing the unit in question? And thus, leaving Ferelden once again in danger of no protection from the darkspawn?

The fact that other nations in Thedas, including the most power, do not try to do this should tell you something. There is a Thedas-wide consensus that the Wardens need to be a free unit, free to act as needed wherever they are needed, regardless of host nation politics. To put the Wardens in the army (other than causing the organization to leave Ferelden) hampers their effectiveness. Because national politics, and not organizational necessity, will govern them, which can be very dangerous.

So no. It is more dangerous to conscript them in the army than to leave them as they are.

[Sarah1281]

@Wereparrot: I think you're missing the point. No one is denying that if Ferelden could make the GWs part of the army it would be good for them. The problem is that it would not be good for the GWs and they would not allow that to happen.



If Ferelden could make the GWs part of their army what is to stop other nations from doing the same? That's why the GWs were so upset that Ferelden kicked their Wardens out; it had never been done before and if they made one wrong move other nations might follow suit. Why would the GWs allow that to happen?



Here is what I think would happen: Ferelden orders the GWs to become a part of their army. Weisshaupt recalls the GWs of Ferelden and leaves Ferelden Warden-less in order to preserve their autonomy. Seriously, what would the GWs get out of this? It's entirely a one-sided arrangement.



Technically, Ferelden already HAS its own means of fighting darkspawn: its own army. They wouldn't be immune from the taint but if they had proper armor like the dwarves have then it would be fine (and the dwarves seem to manage their expeditions to the Deep Roads to kill darkspawn without losing too many people to the taint. Even Ruck only got tainted by eating darkspawn). GWs are technically only required for Blights so if Ferelden didn't trust them to operate within its borders and wanted to exile them again until a new Blight hit then they could feel free to do that but they'd never convince Weisshaupt to allow integration.



And why the huge concern over GWs anyway? GWs from Ferelden are probably going to have at least a cursory loyalty to Ferelden. Ones from, say, Orlais can't always be trusted to be neutral if Orlais isn't acting in Ferelden's best interests (the case of the two legions of chevaliers that the GWs insisted accompany them comes to mind) but that's the Orlesian Wardens acting in Orlais' intereset. The Anderfels in hundreds if not thousands of miles away. Weisshaupt is not going to have any national interest in hurting Ferelden so they will not give orders that would hurt Ferelden. Do you think the Ferelden Wardens are in danger of being convinced by Orlesian Wardens to sabotage the nation?

[Wereparrot]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...


So no. It is more dangerous to conscript them in the army than to leave them as they are.

Dangerous how? If Ferelden leaves them be it faces rebellion. I assume that you mean dangerous in that the Wardens are too strong, in which I agree; but I still think it is desirable for individual nations of Thedas to have their own dawkspawn-fighting capability, aside from, but not outside of, the army.  

Modifié par Wereparrot, 15 janvier 2011 - 12:04 .

[Sarah1281]

How does Ferelden face rebellion by not incorporating them into the army? Are you talking about Sophia's rebellion? That was done because Arland was stupid enough to put his rival for the throne in the Wardens and assumed she'd be powerless.

[mousestalker]

I doubt the designers thought this far but having the Grey Wardens as an international force means that a fair number of your troublemakers wind up killing and being killed by Darkspawn instead of making a nuisance of themselves on the local scene. Thus they serve a useful purpose by bleeding off men with a capacity for organized violence,

[Wereparrot]

Sarah1281 wrote...

How does Ferelden face rebellion by not incorporating them into the army? Are you talking about Sophia's rebellion? That was done because Arland was stupid enough to put his rival for the throne in the Wardens and assumed she'd be powerless.

I say rebellion for want of a better word, since you cannot rebel against that which you owe no fealty; but I for one as king would not feel overly secure without the fealty of all major organisations in my realm. 

[mousestalker]

So you would take on the Chantry with its templars, the mages and the Grey Wardens? Good luck with that. Not to mention the banns adherence to the king is largely voluntary.

[Wereparrot]

mousestalker wrote...

I doubt the designers thought this far but having the Grey Wardens as an international force means that a fair number of your troublemakers wind up killing and being killed by Darkspawn instead of making a nuisance of themselves on the local scene. Thus they serve a useful purpose by bleeding off men with a capacity for organized violence,

Fair point, which begs the idea that a Legion of the Dead-style regiment might be useful. If criminbals could be forced into service against the the darkspawn this may satisfy me.

[LobselVith8]

Wereparrot wrote...

If you put it like that, I think Alistair should be the one in the field and queen Cousland in the administrative role, because Alistair is a soldier and never a politian.

In the real world I think Alistair would face problems if he and queen Cousland ever were to fight together, but as this is Ferelden, it's a moot point of course.

You do realize that Cousland was such a good fighter that Duncan wanted her as his first choice to be a recruit when he went to Highever, correct? To the point he asks her dying father for her entry into the Wardens as a boon for saving her life. She's fought against golems, darkspawn, apostates, and abominations, but you think that she - the Grey Warden who has been leading them for over a year now - should be relegated to administrative work during a Blight? Are you serious?

[Sarah1281]

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

If you put it like that, I think Alistair should be the one in the field and queen Cousland in the administrative role, because Alistair is a soldier and never a politian.

In the real world I think Alistair would face problems if he and queen Cousland ever were to fight together, but as this is Ferelden, it's a moot point of course.

You do realize that Cousland was such a good fighter that Duncan wanted her as his first choice to be a recruit when he went to Highever, correct? To the point he asks her dying father for her entry into the Wardens as a boon for saving her life. She's fought against golems, darkspawn, apostates, and abominations, but you think that she - the Grey Warden who has been leading them for over a year now - should be relegated to administrative work during a Blight? Are you serious?

We were actually talking about after the Blight. I suggested that post-Blight if the armies needed to be led anywhere only one of them would be called upon to do that while the other would need to lead the country. Wereparrot suggested that Queen Cousland does the country-leading as she has the training for it and Alistair (the guy who spent twenty years being purposely trained to be incapable of being king) takes to the field.

[mousestalker]

Sarah1281 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

If you put it like that, I think Alistair should be the one in the field and queen Cousland in the administrative role, because Alistair is a soldier and never a politian.

In the real world I think Alistair would face problems if he and queen Cousland ever were to fight together, but as this is Ferelden, it's a moot point of course.

You do realize that Cousland was such a good fighter that Duncan wanted her as his first choice to be a recruit when he went to Highever, correct? To the point he asks her dying father for her entry into the Wardens as a boon for saving her life. She's fought against golems, darkspawn, apostates, and abominations, but you think that she - the Grey Warden who has been leading them for over a year now - should be relegated to administrative work during a Blight? Are you serious?

We were actually talking about after the Blight. I suggested that post-Blight if the armies needed to be led anywhere only one of them would be called upon to do that while the other would need to lead the country. Wereparrot suggested that Queen Cousland does the country-leading as she has the training for it and Alistair (the guy who spent twenty years being purposely trained to be incapable of being king) takes to the field.

My Cousland who married Alistair wound up playing shogun to his emperor. He is good looking, affable, personally brave and has a sense of humour. The smart thing to do if you intend to run the country yourself is send Alistair to 'touch his pearls and wave at the people.'

[Wereparrot]

mousestalker wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

If you put it like that, I think Alistair should be the one in the field and queen Cousland in the administrative role, because Alistair is a soldier and never a politian.

In the real world I think Alistair would face problems if he and queen Cousland ever were to fight together, but as this is Ferelden, it's a moot point of course.

You do realize that Cousland was such a good fighter that Duncan wanted her as his first choice to be a recruit when he went to Highever, correct? To the point he asks her dying father for her entry into the Wardens as a boon for saving her life. She's fought against golems, darkspawn, apostates, and abominations, but you think that she - the Grey Warden who has been leading them for over a year now - should be relegated to administrative work during a Blight? Are you serious?

We were actually talking about after the Blight. I suggested that post-Blight if the armies needed to be led anywhere only one of them would be called upon to do that while the other would need to lead the country. Wereparrot suggested that Queen Cousland does the country-leading as she has the training for it and Alistair (the guy who spent twenty years being purposely trained to be incapable of being king) takes to the field.

My Cousland who married Alistair wound up playing shogun to his emperor. He is good looking, affable, personally brave and has a sense of humour. The smart thing to do if you intend to run the country yourself is send Alistair to 'touch his pearls and wave at the people.'

So if Alistair does the hand-waving, and queen Cousland the fighting, who does the politics?

[Wereparrot]

mousestalker wrote...

Not to mention the Sacred Band of Thebes. Or the relationship between Alexander the Great and Hephaestion.

This point is irrelevant, since if we ban men from serving on the frontline for the same reason then there would be no one to serve on the frontline. Furthermore, there is, according to wikipaedia, no evidence to suggest Alexander's realationship with Hephaestion was anything other than platonic.

May I present some more arguements to support myself.


In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.
Melody Kemp mentions that the Australian soldiers have voiced concern saying these soldiers "are reluctant to take women on reconnaissance or special operations, as they fear that in the case of combat or discovery, their priority will be to save the women and not to complete the mission. Thus while men might be able to be programmed to kill, it is not as easy to program men to neglect women."

I have no idea who Melodey Kemp is.

These arguements convince people with a far greater understanding of the situation than any of us. I understand a direct correlation with Ferelden is not applicable, but a comparison is; and also a hypothetical interpretation of the events in DOA based on these arguements and the one I gave pages back regarding romantic involvement.

For the record, the roles of Boudicca and the like would not have gone unnoted in generals' and their superiors' thinking.

[IanPolaris]

Wereparrot,



You are aware that recently a full Pentagon study commissioned by the adminstration just come up with precisely the opposite conclusion. In fact there are many studies just as valid as the one you cite that also have come up with just the opposite conclusion, so your opinion while noted is a far cry from a known fact when it comes to men and women in combat. Just saying.



-Polaris

[Wereparrot]

IanPolaris wrote...

Wereparrot,

You are aware that recently a full Pentagon study commissioned by the adminstration just come up with precisely the opposite conclusion. In fact there are many studies just as valid as the one you cite that also have come up with just the opposite conclusion, so your opinion while noted is a far cry from a known fact when it comes to men and women in combat. Just saying.

-Polaris

Well now I am. Could you provide a link?

[LobselVith8]

Wereparrot wrote...

mousestalker wrote...

My Cousland who married Alistair wound up playing shogun to his emperor. He is good looking, affable, personally brave and has a sense of humour. The smart thing to do if you intend to run the country yourself is send Alistair to 'touch his pearls and wave at the people.'

So if Alistair does the hand-waving, and queen Cousland the fighting, who does the politics?

It seems that in her run, she was the general (it's a Japanese military term she used) to Alistair's ruling King, so Alistair likely handled the politics. Although, given how Loghain basically ran Ferelden when Maric was being meloncholy (as Duncan noted in TC), I wouldn't be surprised if she pulled a Loghain and did both.

Modifié par LobselVith8, 15 janvier 2011 - 03:21 .

[IanPolaris]

Wereparrot wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Wereparrot,

You are aware that recently a full Pentagon study commissioned by the adminstration just come up with precisely the opposite conclusion. In fact there are many studies just as valid as the one you cite that also have come up with just the opposite conclusion, so your opinion while noted is a far cry from a known fact when it comes to men and women in combat. Just saying.

-Polaris

Well now I am. Could you provide a link?

Here is the link from my local paper but it references the AP story with the relevant info:

http://www.statesman...xtype=ynews_rss

-Polaris

[Wereparrot]

IanPolaris wrote...

Wereparrot wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Wereparrot,

You are aware that recently a full Pentagon study commissioned by the adminstration just come up with precisely the opposite conclusion. In fact there are many studies just as valid as the one you cite that also have come up with just the opposite conclusion, so your opinion while noted is a far cry from a known fact when it comes to men and women in combat. Just saying.

-Polaris

Well now I am. Could you provide a link?

Here is the link from my local paper but it references the AP story with the relevant info:

http://www.statesman...xtype=ynews_rss

-Polaris

The new report says there has been little evidence that integrating women into previously closed units or military occupations has damaged cohesion or had other ill effects.

Thanks for the link. But it would be folly to dismiss the findings of the IDF without fully analyzing them, is all I'm saying.

Modifié par Wereparrot, 15 janvier 2011 - 04:04 .