169 réponses à ce sujet

[Costin_Razvan]

Again, why would you think that? I mean, when you have a look at countries of today, how many is there which can be pointed at and said "see, these guys would be definitely, totally better off today if only x years earlier they weren't made part of this country"?

Sure...

Any country which was forced into/joined the Ottoman Empire, you will find virtually none of them benefited from it.

[Bleachrude]

1. Cailan had strongly denied Eamon's request to put Anora aside when Eamon made the suggestion more than a year earlier (see the 2nd letter found at Ostagar). This proves that Cailan didn't just hastily come to a decision to put Anora aside and I would point out that the so-called marriage to Celene is heresy since unless actually shown, this is just heresy (Word of God for example also states that Fiona is NOT Alistair's mother which certainly doesn't sound like the Maric in the books)

Ironically, this 2nd letter makes both Eamon and Cailan actually look good since Cailan has not even considered Eamon's request for a year and Eamon who actually benefits with no official heir is begging Cailan to beget one (as mentioned in the game, after Anora herself, Connor (eamon's son) probably had the best shot.

[tmp7704]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

Again, why would you think that? I mean, when you have a look at countries of today, how many is there which can be pointed at and said "see, these guys would be definitely, totally better off today if only x years earlier they weren't made part of this country"?

Sure...

Any country which was forced into/joined the Ottoman Empire, you will find virtually none of them benefited from it.

Considering i've asked about countries of today, i'm not sure how to interpret your answer. Do you mean about one third of today's Europe, Middle East and North Africa is definitely worse off nowadays because 300-500 years earlier they were part of empire which no longer exists? How exactly do we determine that if it wasn't for that, they'd perform better?

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...
Again, why would you think that? I mean, when you have a look at countries of today, how many is there which can be pointed at and said "see, these guys would be definitely, totally better off today if only x years earlier they weren't made part of this country"?

Well Tibetans would say that.
But it's an anachronism you're doing here. Modern countries today are virtually all nation-states. They have the ideas of nationalism engrained in them, and as a foundation for their union. With such ideas, the whole point is to fragment previous empires and supra-national entites and turn them into individual nation-states. It's very different from the situation we are talking about here, which involves a powerful empire and a weak nation. Tribes and groups no longer became relevent for hundreds of years.

But you evaded my main point. Have you ever heard of a country capable of being independent, has potential, is not in dire need, willingly allowing its sovereignity to be compromised in such a fashion?

Like I said, it may not be a disaster in the larger scheme of things. People may benefit. The argument remains that Ferelden did not need to do it, has potential on her own that maybe would have been achieved if Cailan was actually acting like a king instead of being a child. So why sell their autonomy?

EDIT: one example of a nation without a state is Kurds. They would have been better off if they had their own nation-state. They were massacred in Iraq and just recently many of them recieved the right of citizenship in Syria, which they never had before. Plus, neither economies focus on Kurdish regions to develop them. Not to mention that them even learning Kurdish their own language was a hard thing to do.

People fight for sovereignty and independence because they've been conditioned into it by literally thousands of years during which these things were praised as high ideals to strive for. In the meantime, in the world of cold, practical economy which focuses on profit and effectiveness first, there's natural tendency towards (global) conglomerates. Not the mom-and-pop shops which find themselves simply unable to compete. This isn't coincidence.

Actually no, there is a tendency towards regional conglomerates, even in the world today. That's first.
Second, those ultra-liberal ideas don't work that way, as they ignore the concept of Core - Periphery divide and exploitative economics, not to mention comparativ advantages where one have the possibility of long term development and others don't because they are being forced to specialize in a specific field, like raw materials, that does nto allow them to develop properly.

Which is not relevent to the question at hand since politics is not only cold practical economics and Cailan probably wouldn't understand the concept. Politics is about *Relative* gains. Your position compared to others. Never *absolute* gains.

And no, Sovereignity and indepedence are not simply ideals. The fact of community self-determination is not a simple ideal. When a community is under the control of another, and that other is axiomatically determining a course of action where their relative power would increase while weakening that of the subservient community, then the ability to self-determinate their own course of action and seek alternatives becomes a tangible goal and not simply an ideal.

As for historical examples of such unions that didn't take conquers or a party being threatened... there's http://en.wikipedia....ia_Commonwealth (or more precisely, the personal union which existed before it, created by the Jagiellon dynasty)

In a very specific context where those polities were threatened by Muscovites, Sweden, Austria, Ottoman Empire, Prussia and others. Indeed, the union came after those polities had several wars, in particular with Moscow. Not to mention in terms of statecraft, the experiment was mostly a failure.   

So they were in dire need to do it and individually they didn't have potential. This is not the case with Ferelden and Orlais.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 avril 2011 - 02:45 .

[Addai]

Have to agree with KoP (it does happen occasionally, lol). As of game time, there is absolutely no reason for Ferelden to make a marriage alliance with Orlais. They are on the upswing, Orlais is an aging superpower, they should have ties with them but preserve the independence they fought so hard for. It makes sense for two or several weaker countries to ally together, but not a top-down arrangement. And frankly, Cailan is not savvy enough to make that work for him even if there were other advantages. He'd get his head handed to him by Celene- maybe literally.

Modifié par Addai67, 27 avril 2011 - 03:14 .

[Giggles_Manically]

Actually it would be so easy for Celene to bump off Cailan.

She could claim some anti-Fereldan nobles did it AFTER she has a child with him.
Meaning she owns Fereldan, and most Fereldans are angry at some other nobles.

Happened before in the past.

[Wulfram]

The most obvious historical analogy for me is Scotland, which was far better off as part of a union with England, than preserving it's independence through alliance with France and getting invaded regularly as a consequence.

The only real alternative to alliance with Orlais is alliance with Nevarra - in which case they'd still be very much the junior partner, and liable to invasion whenever war kicked off between those two powers.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Wulfram wrote...

The most obvious historical analogy for me is Scotland, which was far better off as part of a union with England, than preserving it's independence through alliance with France and getting invaded regularly as a consequence.

Very debatable, and not so popular when it happened. Second, they were not so different in terms of political and economic power.

EDIT: furthermore, England and Scotland's Royal families already had close ties and the prcoess took decades, not the case with Ferelden and Orlais. Second, England was on the ascendance, while Orlais is weakening.

The only real alternative to alliance with Orlais is alliance with Nevarra - in which case they'd still be very much the junior partner, and liable to invasion whenever war kicked off between those two powers.

Confusing alliance with union. An alliance with Nevarra, even if Ferelden is the junior partner, is not the same as a merger with Orlais.

And wars are bound to happen, merger with Orlais or not.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 avril 2011 - 04:47 .

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

But you evaded my main point. Have you ever heard of a country capable of being independent, has potential, is not in dire need, willingly allowing its sovereignity to be compromised in such a fashion?

I've given you an example, one which you chose to dismis:

In a very specific context where those polities were threatened by Muscovites, Sweden, Austria, Ottoman Empire, Prussia and others. Indeed, the union came after those polities had several wars, in particular with Moscow. Not to mention in terms of statecraft, the experiment was mostly a failure.

The union in question came in form of marriage between the Grand Duke of Lithuania (which was by that time the largest country in Europe and close to the peak of expansion) and the Queen of Poland, around the end of 14th century. The wars and threats you mention didn't appear until literally hundred years later.

The parties involved were not in dire need for such arrangmenet at the time it happened. Or to put it differently, if having neighbours who might want to wage a war with you is supposed to be dire need that forces countries in such arrangements, then "they're in dire need of that" could be said about pretty much any european country of that era. Or for this matter any country, period.

And when we start looking, such personal unions weren't exactly uncommon .

Modifié par tmp7704, 27 avril 2011 - 05:14 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...
The union in question came in form of marriage between the Grand Duke of Lithuania (which was by that time the largest country in Europe and close to the peak of expansion) and the Queen of Poland, around the end of 14th century. The wars and threats you mention didn't appear until literally hundred years later.

No, the union was signed in the 16th century.
http://en.wikipedia....Lithuanian_Wars

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Livonian_war

If you're talking about the dynastic union (Celene seems to imply more with "permanent union"), they both had a common enemy, Poland was facing a succession crisis and civil war. Furthermore, they fought wars against each other in the same period and Lithuania's expansion is part of second face hegemony and indirect coercion. Plus, there was the issue of Christianity and Lithuanian integration into Europe.

And relations were deteriorating (indeed, Lithuania had a civil war because of it)  until the wars cited above cemented the union into something more concrete.

All of those conditions are not present in Ferelden and Orlais.

So no, it's not like Lithuania and Poland just woke up one day and decided it would be a good idea to unite. They were facing specific conditions and pressures. Coercion does not have to be direct, it's called second face of hegemony. Putting high tariffs on another country's products that absolute need your markets for instance, is indrect coercion.

 Or to put it differently, if having neighbours who might want to wage a war with you is supposed to be dire need that forces countries in such arrangements, then "they're in dire need of that" could be said about pretty much any european country of that era. Or for this matter any country, period.

Except not all European countries are weak and in dire need to compromise their sovereignity.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 avril 2011 - 05:36 .

[Costin_Razvan]

I've given you an example, one which you chose to dismis:

What Knight has been trying to say and what you have failed to grasp is not that unions can't be succesful but rather that smaller countries joining with much more powerful ones will lose all their power.

The Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was a specific situation at a sepcific time, and they failed anyway ( eventually )

BUT THAT is beside the bloody point: Fereldan is neither friendly or equal to Orlais, Cailan is not smart enough to maneuver Celene and he would end up dead, that IS the entire point that I and Knight have trying to say: That Fereldan would NOT benefit at all for this.

Oh and please stop trying to use wiki as a source of proof, shows how much you know if you base yourself on it.

You think those nations under the Ottoman Empire had it well? No, none had and if you can use the example of a nation that failed ( Poland-Lithuania ) then so can I. It IS a reality that every nation that was under the Ottomans as a vassal would have been much better out if they hadn't. But do please continue in your false belief.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 avril 2011 - 05:43 .

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, the union was signed in the 16th century.

That's only legalization of what's created nearly two centuries earlier. Technically marriage between Cailan and Celene would be also such personal/dynastic union. And the Fereldan nobles likely wouldn't appreciate it much like the Lithuanian nobles didn't necessarily appreciate theirs.

All of those conditions are not present in Ferelden and Orlais.

What you have with Ferelden and Orlais is a low population backwater country on the edge of frozen wasteland and with possible succession crisis, and a large neighbour who has hands full with a matching opponent in the north... and potentially another continent-wide war coming from the qunari which, should it happen, is likely to affect both countries.

Could they stay away from each other and merely add kicking each other's ankles to the list of their respective trouble? Sure. Would they be better off this way? That i'm not really convinced about. But i guess since the union didn't come to pass we're going to find out how things go for them without it, eventually.

Except not all European countries are weak and in dire need to compromise their sovereignity.

Considering that Lithuania and Poland didn't have too much trouble beating forces fielded from rest of Europe only few decades after their union was formed (the Teutonic Order war) i'd argue they weren't as weak as you paint them, either.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Yea comparing Cailan to Vytautas is just....laughable at best.

[tmp7704]

Costin_Razvan wrote...
Oh and please stop trying to use wiki as a source of proof, shows how much you know if you base yourself on it.

Would you rather me instead refer you to printed books in language you don't speak? Wikipedia can be scoffed at, but it's easily accessible and universal enough for worldwide coverage.

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea comparing Cailan to Vytautas is just....laughable at best.

Considering who was leading the union in question i think you're picturing the arrangement quite in reverse from how i see it. Seems fairly obvious to me Celene would be more of his equivalent, if there was need to name one at all.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...
That's only legalization of what's created nearly two centuries earlier. Technically marriage between Cailan and Celene would be also such personal/dynastic union. And the Fereldan nobles likely wouldn't appreciate it much like the Lithuanian nobles didn't necessarily appreciate theirs.

No, it was the actual merger of the two states into one. It was not just legalization. It provided new terms into the alliance, making it a more concrete and expanded union. It became more than a dynastic union.

What you have with Ferelden and Orlais is a low population backwater country on the edge of frozen wasteland and with possible succession crisis, and a large neighbour who has hands full with a matching opponent in the north... and potentially another continent-wide war coming from the qunari which, should it happen, is likely to affect both countries.

What you have is Ferelden's Amaranthine rivalling Kirkwall which according to Gaider is the main commercial hub of the Waking Sea a few years after a *Blight* without Orlais.

What you have is Ferelden capable of allying with Nevarra to reduce the threat of Orlesian occupation.

And the Qunari invaded full force before and it did not require a compromise of sovereignity for them to be defeated.

Ferelden does not need it, has alternatives and has potential on its own.

Considering that Lithuania and Poland didn't have too much trouble beating forces fielded from rest of Europe only few decades after their union was formed (the Teutonic Order war) i'd argue they weren't as weak as you paint them, either.

With them together yes, hence the point. Individually? No.

Lithuania was getting its ass kicked by Moscow before the union was expanded.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 avril 2011 - 06:09 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Yea comparing Cailan to Vytautas is just....laughable at best.

Considering who was leading the union in question i think you're picturing the arrangement quite in reverse from how i see it. Seems fairly obvious to me Celene would be more of his equivalent, if there was need to name one at all.

Poland and Lithuania had a mroe equitable dynastic union, because of Poland's cultural influence. Ferelden does not have that.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 avril 2011 - 06:05 .

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...

The most obvious historical analogy for me is Scotland, which was far better off as part of a union with England, than preserving it's independence through alliance with France and getting invaded regularly as a consequence.

The only real alternative to alliance with Orlais is alliance with Nevarra - in which case they'd still be very much the junior partner, and liable to invasion whenever war kicked off between those two powers.

This presumes that Orlais would continue to invade Ferelden.  That's a possibility, but they may not have the stomach for it any longer.  Just knuckling under when there is not even a real threat- dumb.  I like Cailan, but it's still dumb.

Of course, I will always be rah-rah independence anyway.  You can't put a price on it.

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

No, it was the actual merger of the two states into one. It was not just legalization. It provided new terms into the alliance, making it a more concrete and expanded union. It became more than a dynastic union.

And there's no proof what Cailan had on mind was this sort of relationship, as opposed to personal (or dynastic) union, is there? Especially if at the same time you choose to insist that Ferelden is a succesful young, strong power on the rise in the world of Thedas.

What you have is Ferelden capable of allying with Nevarra to reduce the threat of Orlesian occupation.

If Nevarra is actually interested in such an alliance. Is there a sign it ever was? Like, when it was mutually beneficial, in thevery recent time when both countries were involved in their own, respective wars with Orlais?

And the Quanari invaded full force before and it did not require a compromise of sovereignity for them to be defeated.

Apparently DA2 retcons the qunari defeat into pulling out on their own accord, to preserve local populations of territories they've conquered.  The new codex states rather explicitly that no matter what the countries of Thedas tried to throw at the qunari, it didn't have any real effect on them.

Considering that Lithuania and Poland didn't have too much trouble beating forces fielded from rest of Europe only few decades after their union was formed (the Teutonic Order war) i'd argue they weren't as weak as you paint them, either.

With them together yes, hence the point. Individually? No.

So, it's perfectly believable for two weak countries to beat combined forces of multiple and supposedly much more powerful and threatening neighbours? To the point of beating the desire out of them to really try it again?

Lithuania was getting its ass kicked by Moscow before the union was expanded.

A hundred years after it was formed , yes.

[KnightofPhoenix]

tmp7704 wrote...
And there's no proof what Cailan had on mind was this sort of relationship, as opposed to personal (or dynastic) union, is there? Especially if at the same time you choose to insist that Ferelden is a succesful young, strong power on the rise in the world of Thedas..

It doens't matter what he had on his so called mind unless he thinks he can live forever or more laughable, if he thinks he is qualified enough to set proper foundations, when he can't even bother to rule his own country.
What matters is what Celene has on her mind (and seeing how the idiot never even met her, I wonder how can he possibly know what's on her mind), what the Orlesian and Ferelden establishments think, and the political, economic and miltiary factors involved.

I could list all the reasons as to why in such a union, Ferelden will be the much weaker party and its relative position vis a vis Orlais will dcrease.

Ferelden could be a succesful young and strong power on the rise on its own. Not under Cailan, but after the Blight yes.

If Nevarra is actually interested in such an alliance. Is there a sign it ever was? Like, when it was mutually beneficial, in thevery recent time when both countries were involved in their own, respective wars with Orlais?.

Ferelden was conquered by Orlais for 80 years, so no possibility for alliance then. Before that, Ferelden was very weak and isolated, which makes an alliance wiht them useless. This however can and does change. And would have changed earlier if Cailan actually knows what he's doing.

And why wouldn't Nevarra be interested in it, when they know their hold over the blasted hills is fragile and when an alliance with Ferelden can deter Orlais from goign to direct war as they risk doing so on two-fronts?

Add to that the Waking Sea and Ferelden's ability to blockade Orlais should it become strong enougn.

Of course Nevarra has every interest in allying with Ferelden. 

Apparently DA2 retcons the qunari defeat into pulling out on their own accord, to preserve local populations of territories they've conquered.  The new codex states rather explicitly that no matter what the countries of Thedas tried to throw at the qunari, it didn't have any real effect on them.

Not really. The First Exalted March was a success and it pushed the Qunari back, hence the Chantry forces beign able to reach Rivain in the first place. 
Yes, the Qunari stopped because they didn't want their own civilian casualties. That does not mean that they could have been able to win the war militarily. Like I said, thery were aleady pushed back all the way to Rivain.

So, it's perfectly believable for two weak countries to beat combined forces of multiple and supposedly much more powerful and threatening neighbours? To the point of beating the desire out of them to really try it again?

Yes, unless those neighbours also unite to counter balance, which didn't happen (Teutonic knights are not a combined force of multiple powerful neighbours). I didn't say much more powerful in that context.

In the context of Ferelden and Orlais however, Orlais is much more powerful at the present time.  

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 27 avril 2011 - 06:40 .

[Costin_Razvan]

It's interesting how this turned into a discussion of comparing the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Fereldan uniting with Orlais.

You do realize Celene was going to kill Cailan at first glance right? Well after he gave her a child ( and even if Cailan wasn't going to give her a child since he couldn't then you can bet she was going to get pregnant regardless ).

Then Fereldan would fall under her direct rule as she acted as regeant for the boy.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 27 avril 2011 - 06:52 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

Hell, go beyond Europe and into the industrial age, and I can think of MANY countries that would have been better off NOT being a part of a European Empire. Many places that still today are suffering as a result of the mistakes of their former imperial overlords.

Orlais' occupation of Ferelden was not so dissimilar. Like the colonial powers, it was a relationship of exploitation and dominance. And in the case of many former European imperial possessions, not all were aquired through warfare/invasion. You only needed a short sighted idiot king/chief/ruler to go into some sort of formal partnership, and the weaker entity is assimilated.

Ferelden and Orlais, though they might share a border and a religion, and culturally and socially very different from one another. And Orlesian culture would actually be worse for the vast majority of Ferelden's population. Orlais does not have a free-holder/commoner based culture, most peasants are something akin to serfs, elves have even less legal rights and social standing than in Ferelden, commoners have no rights to be protected from Chevalier abuses, and even the nobility loses signifigant power.

So really, even on the cultural/social front, Ferelden loses more than it gains.

[tmp7704]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

It doens't matter what he had on his so called mind unless he thinks he can live forever or more laughable, if he thinks he is qualified enough to set proper foundations, when he can't even bother to rule his own country.

I'd imagine the way he sees it is, his and Celene's children get to rule both Ferelden and Orlais. Which is more than having his bloodline reign over Ferelden alone.

Maybe it's too much of playing the Crusader Kings speaking through me, but ruling is ultimately much more about expanding influence of your bloodline and long-term expansion than getting attached to some particular tiny bit of territory. Some peasants in your dominion may get upset they're just seen as pawn in the game but then they're just that, peasants.

And it's quite more satisfying to start with single province and control a country worth of subjects in less than three generations 
 

Ferelden was conquered by Orlais for 80 years, so no possibility for alliance then.

Ferelden had active and fighting insurgents which could've been contacted and offered support. Resistance seems to have been active for at least 50 years prior to final, succesful rebellion.

And why wouldn't Nevarra be interested in it (..) Of course Nevarra has every interest in allying with Ferelden.

It is a good question. And one that has to be asked given they apparently were not interested enough in it to make effort earlier, when such cooperation could've been just as useful. Given this, it's possible they see their interests differently and all talk about possible alliance remains entirely unsupported by the game itself.

Not really. The First Exalted March was a success and it pushed the Qunari back, hence the Chantry forces beign able to reach Rivain in the first place. 
Yes, the Qunari stopped because they didn't want their own civilian casualties. That does not mean that they could have been able to win the war militarily. Like I said, thery were aleady pushed back all the way to Rivain.

I'd argue if you spend fifty years just to make the enemy fall back to their entrenched positions, and then spend next hundred years throwing armies at them "without even chipping the qunari force" then the military victory doesn't look too likely. So it cannot be really said that "it didn't even take full force to defeat the qunari". At best, their initial advance was stopped and reduced to "only" two countries worth of territory.

Now what if such intial advance of the next war started in Ferelden, and the qunari wouldn't pull out this time? Not exactly a prospect for the Ferelden to look forward to. Or for any country which could become such target, for this matter.

 (Teutonic knights are not a combined force of multiple powerful neighbours).

Hmm i was basing that on sources which would list considerable forces from other european countries on the side of the Knights. But i see the wiki has quite different take on it. Guess it's the controversy over the actual number involved that it mentions.

[Bleachrude]

Addai67 wrote...

Have to agree with KoP (it does happen occasionally, lol). As of game time, there is absolutely no reason for Ferelden to make a marriage alliance with Orlais. They are on the upswing, Orlais is an aging superpower, they should have ties with them but preserve the independence they fought so hard for. It makes sense for two or several weaker countries to ally together, but not a top-down arrangement. And frankly, Cailan is not savvy enough to make that work for him even if there were other advantages. He'd get his head handed to him by Celene- maybe literally.

Um, Orlais is EXPLICITLY not an Aging power.

Right now, as per Codex, thanks to Celene and her support of the arts and learning, the Orlesians are undergoing a cultural Enlightenment/Renaissance

(The Codex entry even goes further and points out that there is significant change in the future afoot between the heresies talked about in Val Royeaux university, the only one in Thedas I might add and the more conservative elements of the Chantry)

The aging superpower is the Tevinters if anything...

[Costin_Razvan]

Um, Orlais is EXPLICITLY not an Aging power.

Right now, as per Codex, thanks to Celene and her support of the arts and learning, the Orlesians are undergoing a cultural Enlightenment/Renaissance

(The Codex entry even goes further and points out that there is significant change in the future afoot between the heresies talked about in Val Royeaux university, the only one in Thedas I might add and the more conservative elements of the Chantry)

The aging superpower is the Tevinters if anything...

Yet it lost it's northeastern border to Nevarra in a war recently + it doesn't control the large territories it once did ( Free marchers, Nevarra, Fereldan )