764 réponses à ce sujet

[nos_astra]

LobselVith8 wrote...
Losing their sovereignty to a nation that oppressed them isn't likely to go over well the masses.

Before Ferelden would be losing it's souvereignity it might take another 25 to 40 years of co-rule. And even then Ferelden would be under Orlesian influence and not part of the empire. It's a gradual process, one that even could be stopped or reversed, I assume.

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I am not talking about cultural loss only, I am talkign about political indepdence and sovereignity.

What's the point of political independence and souvereignity if not preserving a cultural identity?

Just because you can make Ferelden work, doesn't mean you have to do it at all cost.

Modifié par klarabella, 21 février 2011 - 09:54 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I am not talking about cultural loss only, I am talkign about political indepdence and sovereignity.

What's the point of political independence and souvereignity if not preserving a cultural identity?

That's one reason, not all. Self-determination is another. When a nation has the right to choose the future it wants.  When it can choose when it would fight and when it wouldn't (a "union" with Orlais will mean Fereldans bein used to fight Orlesian wars). When it decides what to do with its own natural and human ressources, and not be exploited.

It's almost circular. Independence is to preserve cultural identity, but is also fueled by it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
Just because you can make Ferelden work, doesn't mean you have to do it at all cost.

? And what are the costs?

If Ferelden can only work with massive destruction and genocide, then you'd have a point. 
But when a nation willingly accepts its weakness and does nothing, it does not deserve to exist and nor should it moan when others devour it. 

If Fereldans prove so stupid as to forsake their independence when they don't have to, then I won't cry a river over it, they just proved to me that they do not deserve a country.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 février 2011 - 10:00 .

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
? And what are the costs?

The death of a king that prevents a permanent political alliance and assistance from Orlais, and causes a civil war and a largely ignored Blight.

At what lengths should you go to preserve the souvereignity of Ferelden?

Modifié par klarabella, 21 février 2011 - 10:21 .

[LobselVith8]

klarabella wrote...

Before Ferelden would be losing it's souvereignity it might take another 25 to 40 years of co-rule. And even then Ferelden would be under Orlesian influence and not part of the empire. It's a gradual process, one that even could be stopped or reversed, I assume.

I doubt the people would stand for Cailan handing over their nation to the Orlesians. It's not as if some people didn't think Teyrn Cousland would be a better ruler than Cailan to begin with. All Cailan would be doing is cementing the end of Calenhad rule with an inevitable revolution, or even giving Loghain tremendous support to supplant him in order to keep Ferelden independence intact.

[nos_astra]

LobselVith8 wrote...
I doubt the people would stand for Cailan handing over their nation to the Orlesians.

Just like that? No.
But there's a Blight coming and help from Orlais might have gone a long way.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...
The death of a king that prevents a permanent political alliance and assistance from Orlais, a civil war and an ignored Blight.

There are ways to fix the system that led to this internally. It does not require foreign interference, when they are not doing this because they care. 

Furthermore, a blight is an extra-ordinary event. You can't build a political system while taking it too much into account. So it's largely irrlevent and it stems from the idiocy of the banns and Loghain's failure. Both can be fixed internally.

klarabella wrote...
At what lengths should you go to preserve the souvereignity of Ferelden?

Whatever it takes, as long as it doesn't become counter-productive.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...
I doubt the people would stand for Cailan handing over their nation to the Orlesians.

Just like that? No.
But there's a Blight coming and help from Orlais might have gone a long way.

Why does help necessarily has to translate to union?

Furthermore, no one in Ferelden believed it was a blight, not even the imbecile Cailan.

[nos_astra]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Why does help necessarily has to translate to union?
Furthermore, no one in Ferelden believed it was a blight, not even the imbecile Cailan.

Imagine Cailan would have announced a marriage with Celene, the Bannorn would have objected, uproar among the nobility and the freeholders. And then the Darkspawn come and Ferelden and Orlais beat them back.

Sounds like it might have worked, had Cailan survived.

[KnightofPhoenix]

klarabella wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Why does help necessarily has to translate to union?
Furthermore, no one in Ferelden believed it was a blight, not even the imbecile Cailan.

Imagine Cailan would have announced a marriage with Celene, the Bannorn would have objected, uproar among the nobility and the freeholders. And then the Darkspawn come and Ferelden and Orlais beat them back.

Sounds like it might have worked, had Cailan survived.

And why? Why the marriage in the first place?

Couldn't it have been the creation of an alliance, and Orlesians coming in to help them to make it acceptable? Why does it have to be a marriage: aka Ferelden annexed by Orlais?

I wouldn't think it's prudent, but certainly much better than a so called "union" cemented by marriage.

[Addai]

Curlain wrote...

That's an interesting idea, would a union between Ferelden and Orlais have actually been a bad thing or possibly something positive for both nations, creating a more powerful nation out of said union, particularly if Celene and Calian were joint rulers (this has happened a few times in history, for example the House of Stuart becoming the royal house of both England and Scotland)

Edit: an important difference to remember in this situation is this wouldn't be an invasion and occupation, which was the situation in The Stolen Throne, but rather peaceful alliance of nations under one royal house.  So the situation that is presented in The Stolen Throne would not likely be the one following such a union.  Not necessarily saying it would be a good thing still, but in the grand scale of things it could be

It depends on how you define "good."  I'm sure some in Scotland have opinions on whether it was good for them to be joined at the hip to England.  Or any number of Eastern European countries to Russia, to use another example I've brought up before.

A "peaceful alliance" between a more powerful state and one that was only recently under its boot would have predictable results, I think.  Exploitation is exploitation, even if it's genteel.  And remember Orlais has a long history of mad emperors and only one empress, middle aged now, who's proven to be more moderate.  What happens when the next mad emperor is in charge?  How are you going to dislodge the Orlesians then?

Modifié par Addai67, 21 février 2011 - 10:42 .

[saMoorai]

Loghain served his country and is a Hero. I can understand his Hatred for The Orlesians and his Mistrust for the Grey Wardens. He Deserves a Chance to redeem himself.

[Amazon Queen]

Addai67 wrote...

Curlain wrote...

That's an interesting idea, would a union between Ferelden and Orlais have actually been a bad thing or possibly something positive for both nations, creating a more powerful nation out of said union, particularly if Celene and Calian were joint rulers (this has happened a few times in history, for example the House of Stuart becoming the royal house of both England and Scotland)

Edit: an important difference to remember in this situation is this wouldn't be an invasion and occupation, which was the situation in The Stolen Throne, but rather peaceful alliance of nations under one royal house.  So the situation that is presented in The Stolen Throne would not likely be the one following such a union.  Not necessarily saying it would be a good thing still, but in the grand scale of things it could be

It depends on how you define "good."  I'm sure some in Scotland have opinions on whether it was good for them to be joined at the hip to England.  Or any number of Eastern European countries to Russia, to use another example I've brought up before.

A "peaceful alliance" between a more powerful state and one that was only recently under its boot would have predictable results, I think.  Exploitation is exploitation, even if it's genteel.  And remember Orlais has a long history of mad emperors and only one empress, middle aged now, who's proven to be more moderate.  What happens when the next mad emperor is in charge?  How are you going to dislodge the Orlesians then?

Yes. First thing the Stuarts did was move to England. After the Act of Union the Scots lost their parliament. It doesn't matter how benign Celenes intentions are. Unite a rich powerful country with a smaller poorer one and its pretty obvious which is going to dominate the union.

[Curlain]

Addai67 wrote...

It depends on how you define "good."  I'm sure some in Scotland have opinions on whether it was good for them to be joined at the hip to England.  Or any number of Eastern European countries to Russia, to use another example I've brought up before.

A "peaceful alliance" between a more powerful state and one that was only recently under its boot would have predictable results, I think.  Exploitation is exploitation, even if it's genteel.  And remember Orlais has a long history of mad emperors and only one empress, middle aged now, who's proven to be more moderate.  What happens when the next mad emperor is in charge?  How are you going to dislodge the Orlesians then?

Modern countries are not necessarily a good example here, nationalism and national identity were foreign political concepts to the medieval mind, while an idea of being from a certain people existed, the idea of the nation state and nationalism would not appear until centuries later.  People opperated through various forms of the fedual system and through custom, through systems of duties, obligations and responsibities on all sides, and it was not uncommon to see a noble having lands in two different kingdoms (say in the Kingdom of England and that of France, which was how the Ango-Norman-Plantagent Kings formed the Angevian empire), and such nobles were not percieved as foriegn interlopers.  Even when kingship changed hands to someone of a foriegn nationality it did not in itself cause issue, the English did not necessarily resent William the Conquer because he was Norman-French (he did have  a claim to the throne, and they had worked well under Danish rulers like Canute) but because the incoming Normans replaced much of exist systems of rule and at times ignored established custom.  Whether Thedas has developed the concept of nationhood in their lands is a question, and would make this different.

As for England and Scotland in union, that did not happen for over hundred years, with Parliments in both Scotland and England rejected the idea for a long time, with the Stuarts leading the nations as indepent allied kingdoms.  It was only allowed when both Parliments finally accepted the idea.  if Ferelden and Orlias were to function like this, then Ferelden would retain it's own rule, customs and laws, and the Bannorn would retain it's authority.  Both Ferelden and Orlais would exist as  seperate allied kingdoms ruled by one monarch.

Modifié par Curlain, 21 février 2011 - 11:03 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Curlain wrote...
 Whether Thedas has developed the concept of nationhood in their lands is a question, and would make this different.

I think they did, or at least Ferelden did. What's their battlecry? "For Ferelden". This is very indicative. It's not "For king and country". Or "For the king".

The people of Ferelden have ben described as very proud and independent. Also, the nobility has power in part because freeholders allow them (the system has a lot of limitations, but there is a semblance of it being bottom up and not only top down).  I think history has shown that bottom up systems (and specifically the middle class) are more likely to embrace concepts like nationhood, rather than top-down systems (European aristocracies would identify more with fellow aristocrats and not peasants who lived in the same kingdom).

Though I would agree that calling it nationalism would be an anachronism even in Ferelden's case, I think Fereldans do have a conception of nationhood or proto-nationalism if we want to call it that.

EDIT: there is also Maric saying that no person is more important than Ferelden.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 février 2011 - 11:10 .

[Glorfindel709]

I'll chime in here in agreement with KoP. Fereldens throughout the game are shown to have a pretty strong national identity (proto-nationalism is indeed a good word for it) that is associated primarily with independence, dogs, and the bottom up power system.



"Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical Orlesian ceremony."



The fact of the matter is that as much as it would be a beneficial economic alliance for Fereldens' growth, Orlais has some serious negative connotations with the people of Ferelden (for example, in Awakening you can choose to do the Orlesian tactic and kidnap family members in order to force cooperation) and I honestly don't see the people of Ferelden being willing to accept Orlesian rule again (but most especially in the titled segment of society. Everyone from Freeholder up would be outraged and probably try to have the Golden Ponce thrown off his throne in a glorious fashion)

[Amazon Queen]

Curlain wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

It depends on how you define "good."  I'm sure some in Scotland have opinions on whether it was good for them to be joined at the hip to England.  Or any number of Eastern European countries to Russia, to use another example I've brought up before.

A "peaceful alliance" between a more powerful state and one that was only recently under its boot would have predictable results, I think.  Exploitation is exploitation, even if it's genteel.  And remember Orlais has a long history of mad emperors and only one empress, middle aged now, who's proven to be more moderate.  What happens when the next mad emperor is in charge?  How are you going to dislodge the Orlesians then?

Modern countries are not necessarily a good example here, nationalism and national identity were foreign political concepts to the medieval mind, while an idea of being from a certain people existed, the idea of the nation state and nationalism would not appear until centuries later.  People opperated through various forms of the fedual system and through custom, through systems of duties, obligations and responsibities on all sides, and it was not uncommon to see a noble having lands in two different kingdoms (say in the Kingdom of England and that of France, which was how the Ango-Norman-Plantagent Kings formed the Angevian empire), and such nobles were not percieved as foriegn interlopers.  Even when kingship changed hands to someone of a foriegn nationality it did not in itself cause issue, the English did not necessarily resent William the Conquer because he was Norman-French (he did have  a claim to the throne, and they had worked well under Danish rulers like Canute) but because the incoming Normans replaced much of exist systems of rule and at times ignored established custom.  Whether Thedas has developed the concept of nationhood in their lands is a question, and would make this different.

As for England and Scotland in union, that did not happen for over hundred years, with Parliments in both Scotland and England rejected the idea for a long time, with the Stuarts leading the nations as indepent allied kingdoms.  It was only allowed when both Parliments finally accepted the idea.  if Ferelden and Orlias were to function like this, then Ferelden would retain it's own rule, customs and laws, and the Bannorn would retain it's authority.  Both Ferelden and Orlais would exist as  seperate allied kingdoms ruled by one monarch.

nationhood was developing during this period
both English and French sense of themselves as a nation got a huge boost from the 100 Years War
after John lost Normandy very few nobles held land in both England and France
one of the main reasons for the Barons Revolt in England was the English nobility resenting Henry III favouring Savoyard and Poitevan aliens over English lords

The Scottish parliament had to be heavily bribed to abolish itself. Although Scotland retained its own legal system a lot of its culture was suppressed. Even when I was at school there in the 1980s speaking Scots was discouraged in favour of "proper" English

[Addai]

Curlain wrote...
Modern countries are not necessarily a good example here, nationalism and national identity were foreign political concepts to the medieval mind, while an idea of being from a certain people existed, the idea of the nation state and nationalism would not appear until centuries later.

And yet the former is clearly what we are dealing with in the case of Ferelden.  Unless you really want to make a case that culturally, the Fereldans are similar to Orlesians?  Or historically?  Or ethnically?

Modifié par Addai67, 22 février 2011 - 01:14 .

[nos_astra]

Amazon Queen wrote...
The Scottish parliament had to be heavily bribed to abolish itself. Although Scotland retained its own legal system a lot of its culture was suppressed. Even when I was at school there in the 1980s speaking Scots was discouraged in favour of "proper" English.

Didn't the process still take centuries?

There are attempts to revive the language, but it still don't have the same legal backup as Irish, so I've heard.

[nos_astra]

Addai67 wrote...
And yet the former is clearly what we are dealing with in the case of Ferelden.  Unless you really want to make a case that culturally, the Fereldans are similar to Orlesians? Or historically? Or ethnically?

Yeah, strong nationalism in a country that simply chose to lose their own language.

*head->desk*

Modifié par klarabella, 22 février 2011 - 08:28 .

[Amazon Queen]

klarabella wrote...

Amazon Queen wrote...
The Scottish parliament had to be heavily bribed to abolish itself. Although Scotland retained its own legal system a lot of its culture was suppressed. Even when I was at school there in the 1980s speaking Scots was discouraged in favour of "proper" English.

Didn't the process still take centuries?

There are attempts to revive the language, but it still don't have the same legal backup as Irish, so I've heard.

Yes, it took centuries and it could be argued that Scotland benefited especially when Britain had an empire but there was a cost - Cromwells campaigns in Scotland, the Jacobite rebellions, the Highland Clearances etc.

Both Scots and Scots Gaelic are now officially recognised as languages but spoken by small numbers of people. Scots mainly exists as slang. I wouldn't regard a living language as essential to a cultural identity. Irish and Welsh are also spoken by few as a first language but I don't think it could be denied that they, Ireland especially, have distinctive cultural identities from England.

[Addai]

klarabella wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
And yet the former is clearly what we are dealing with in the case of Ferelden.  Unless you really want to make a case that culturally, the Fereldans are similar to Orlesians? Or historically? Or ethnically?

Yeah, strong nationalism in a country that simply chose to lose their own language.

*head->desk*

And this makes them Orlesian?  Once you pick your head up, maybe you can explain that.

[MassStorm]

DIE DIE DIE

[USArmyParatrooper]

The summary of all this is Loghain is EEEEVIL!