144 réponses à ce sujet

[Persephone]

Rifneno wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

David Gaider confirmed in one of his PAX livestream chats that Cailan was planning to divorce Anora and marry Celene. It was originally going to be part of the game plot, but was dropped and hence the letters in RtO in order to bring that plot element back in a bit.

Indeed. But what I still don't get is why people think it's automatically some great betrayal to Ferelden. Royalty marries other nation's royalty for political alliances all the damn time, especially former enemies.

Persephone wrote...

*Facepalm*

Prestige is the last thing Loghain cares about. And Cailan couldn't stand up to a wet field mouse, much less to Loghain himself without pulling the "I am the KING! *Whine*" card.

This dead horse just got kicked into life again........wonderful.

Unlike the coward who fled, Cailan stood up to the darkspawn horde. And dead horse? You're surprised we're talking about Dragon Age, on the Dragon Age forum? Facepalm indeed.

Yes. Just look at how well that ended for Mary Tudor.

Casting aside a loyal wife to marry your the ruler of your former oppressors isn't a betrayal?

You can't tell the difference between a tactical retreat (Something even the greatest generals have used) and cowardice?

Or the difference between reckless glory hunting idiocy ("No archdemon! Waaaaah!") and bravery.....

This is the DAII forum, while discussing the situation is on topic, the billionth debate on Ostagar clearly is not.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

From what we hear of the Banns, they seem pretty much equivalent to the gentry who dominated the English parliament. And the Banns are in their turn entirely dependant on the support of the freeholders, who are unambiguously middle class.

The English parliament dominated England only when it was clearly the middle class that dominated it, as in lower house became more important than upper house (it was explicitly demonstrated in the "glorious revolution"). And that's when England started to become a power that was relevent. 

The middle class do not need over glorified land owners as representatives, they can represent themselves.

The Landsmeet seems to be based on an earlier point in British history, the Germanic/ Celtic folkmoot.  A meeting of clan leaders- the clan leaders being chosen by their people, usually based on who was the strongest warlord.  Ferelden appears to be at the point of English history where the older system has been adapted to a Norman i.e. more hierarchical system based on a landed aristocracy.

So, the irony of arguing that what they need is a stronger monarchy is that this would be a step back in terms of popular representation.  A system based on freeholders is not a bad system.  Private property is the foundation of political freedom- land is the most stable form of private property.  Nothing says a freeholder will make a good representative, of course, but that's the case for any representative system.  They are still accountable to their tenants and to trade guilds, i.e. to "the middle class."

Of course, I don't see any problem with a country not being "relevant."  Relevance usually means starting wars in far-off places and England had no business doing that any more than Ferelden does.

Modifié par Addai67, 16 juin 2011 - 08:46 .

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Anora disputes that herself.  She says she trusted Loghain up until late in the game events, and that she went to Howe of her own will.

It is absolutely obvious that Loghain is the one exercising power from the start, and Loghain leaves her imprisoned even after Howe has suggested her murder.

And most obviously, he is absolutely determined to cling to power even after Anora sides against him.  If the Landsmeet follows his daughter rather than him, he calls them traitors.

Er, Loghain did not even know where she was.  At the Landsmeet he's asking the Warden where his daughter is.  Cauthrien shows up at Howe's looking for the Warden, and doesn't believe you if you say you have Anora with you.  So Loghain never knew about Anora going to Howe or about him imprisoning her.

The real mystery is why Anora would overhear Howe suggesting that she be killed and then go to him herself to conspire against Loghain.  But, that's what she says- she went there out of her own free will.

Loghain doesn't consider himself the country's political ruler.  He'll argue with Eamon that Ferelden has a strong queen.  He considers Ferelden under the equivalent of martial law, and Anora isn't a military ruler.  Heavy handed, but Anora cooperated with him most of the way so she can't have objected too much.

Modifié par Addai67, 16 juin 2011 - 08:47 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
So, the irony of arguing that what they need is a stronger monarchy is that this would be a step back in terms of popular representation.

Not really, I believe it's possible to have a strong monarchy and a Landsmeet that is truly representatives of freeholders, without the useless buffer that is the nobility. Which you keep assuming that is, constantly ignoring what the bannorn is and what they do.

And again, thinking that relevance only has to be offensive, as if that's a bad thing in the first place, and not defensive, because as we all know, systems are all secluded and the international context never matters.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 juin 2011 - 08:53 .

[Wulfram]

Addai67 wrote...

Er, Loghain did not even know where she was.  At the Landsmeet he's asking the Warden where his daughter is.  Cauthrien shows up at Howe's looking for the Warden, and doesn't believe you if you say you have Anora with you.  So Loghain never knew about Anora going to Howe or about him imprisoning her.

The assumption that Cauthrien knows everything Loghain does doesn't seem a good one to me.

Why would he think the Warden had kidnapped Anora if he didn't know she was at Howe's?

The real mystery is why Anora would overhear Howe suggesting that she be killed and then go to him herself to conspire against Loghain.

Because the discussion happened after her imprisonment, obviously.  Howe would not propose it while she was free and cooperating with Loghain's regime.

Loghain doesn't consider himself the country's political ruler.  He'll argue with Eamon that Ferelden has a strong queen.  He considers Ferelden under the equivalent of martial law, and Anora isn't a military ruler.  Heavy handed, but Anora cooperated with him most of the way so she can't have objected too much.

He's hardly going to hand Eamon ammunition at the Landsmeet - without his claim to be acting on Anora's behalf his rule is blatantly invalid.  And Anora's initial foolish trust doesn't change that Loghain is determined to destroy all opposition to his rule long after it can be considered anything except a straightforward coup on his part.

Modifié par Wulfram, 16 juin 2011 - 09:07 .

[Addai]

Wulfram wrote...
Why would he think the Warden had kidnapped Anora if he didn't know she was at Howe's?

She's disappeared, and who else is his main political enemy?

Because the discussion happened after her imprisonment, obviously.  Howe would not propose it while she was free and cooperating with Loghain's regime.

Anora overhears the discussion.  You're saying it happened outside her prison door?  I guess that's possible, but there's no evidence to support it.

He's hardly going to hand Eamon ammunition at the Landsmeet - without his claim to be acting on Anora's behalf his rule is blatantly invalid.  And Anora's initial foolish trust doesn't change that Loghain is determined to destroy all opposition to his rule long after it can be considered anything except a straightforward coup on his part.

And Eamon is instituting a coup, too.  This is the dirty business of the Landsmeet.  So at least if you're going to blame Loghain, you have to share it around.

But I'm not really going to argue this.  It's not pertinent to the OP and I know by now that if someone wants to take the worst possible interpretation of every ambiguity, that's what they're going to do. 

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
So, the irony of arguing that what they need is a stronger monarchy is that this would be a step back in terms of popular representation.

Not really, I believe it's possible to have a strong monarchy and a Landsmeet that is truly representatives of freeholders, without the useless buffer that is the nobility. Which you keep assuming that is, constantly ignoring what the bannorn is and what they do.

The bannorn are the freeholders.  Who else are you talking about?

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
So, the irony of arguing that what they need is a stronger monarchy is that this would be a step back in terms of popular representation.

Not really, I believe it's possible to have a strong monarchy and a Landsmeet that is truly representatives of freeholders, without the useless buffer that is the nobility. Which you keep assuming that is, constantly ignoring what the bannorn is and what they do.

The bannorn are the freeholders.  Who else are you talking about?

No, they are not. Freeholders are landowners who choose the noble they want to be protected by.

Codex: "Each freehold chooses the bann or arl to whom it pays allegiance.
Typically, this choice is based on proximity of the freehold to the
lord's castle, as it's worthless to pay for the upkeep of soldiers who
will arrive at your land too late to defend it. For the most part, each
generation of freeholders casts its lot with the same bann as their
fathers did, but things can and do change. No formal oaths are sworn,
and it is not unheard of, especially in the prickly central Bannorn, for
banns to court freeholders away from their neighbors--a practice which
inevitably begets feuds that last for ages.
"

The Bannorn is a collection of petty nobles, whom the freeholders gave allegiance to for protection.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You can't have a strong monarchy (usually an absolute monarchy) and a "democracy" at the same time. You can't have a strong centralized state and expect it to contain the decentralized ideas.

You can only have one of them. Either the king will be able to ignore the Freeholders and rule alone, and only keep them as council, and to appease their cravings for "power". Or the king will simply be a marionet for the Freeholders, a mouthpiece so to speak.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You can't have a strong monarchy (usually an absolute monarchy) and a "democracy" at the same time. You can't have a strong centralized state and expect it to contain the decentralized ideas.

"Democracy" is not a "decentralized" idea.
And no where did I mention a democracy.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Freeholders will have to form some sort of council, which will have some sort of elections, either by status or by popular demand (of the council members). I guess the real term is aristocracy. Either way, you can't have both a strong council and a strong king. They will never be able to coexist, and will be subject to constant power struggles.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Freeholders will have to form some sort of council, which will have some sort of elections, either by status or by popular demand (of the council members). I guess the real term is aristocracy. Either way, you can't have both a strong council and a strong king. They will never be able to coexist, and will be subject to constant power struggles.

More like oligarchy or plutocracy. And I never claimed I wanted a "strong" council, in the way you meant it. At least not in the short future. It would require stronger foundations than this.

[EmperorSahlertz]

As it is now in Ferelden, the king cannot ignore the Landsmeet, since the landsmeet can simply appoint a new king. Nor can the Banns, Arls, and Teyrns ignore the King, if the king have the popular support. Right now it seems rather balanced in Ferelden.

[KnightofPhoenix]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

As it is now in Ferelden, the king cannot ignore the Landsmeet, since the landsmeet can simply appoint a new king. Nor can the Banns, Arls, and Teyrns ignore the King, if the king have the popular support. Right now it seems rather balanced in Ferelden.

Balance that is leading to stagnation imo.

And I never said they should ignore the Landsmeet. There are more efficient and subtle ways to get the country to shed its barbaric shell.

[Master Shiori]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

As it is now in Ferelden, the king cannot ignore the Landsmeet, since the landsmeet can simply appoint a new king. Nor can the Banns, Arls, and Teyrns ignore the King, if the king have the popular support. Right now it seems rather balanced in Ferelden.

Balance that is leading to stagnation imo.

And I never said they should ignore the Landsmeet. There are more efficient and subtle ways to get the country to shed its barbaric shell.

Ferelden is only a country in a very loose sense. It's being kept together purely because of rulers from Calehad's lineage. Should that line die out, the country would fracture and cease to exist. You need to create some sort of bond greater than respect for a single person's line or the country will do worse than stagnate; it'll outright crumble.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
No, they are not. Freeholders are landowners who choose the noble they want to be protected by.

Codex: "Each freehold chooses the bann or arl to whom it pays allegiance.
Typically, this choice is based on proximity of the freehold to the
lord's castle, as it's worthless to pay for the upkeep of soldiers who
will arrive at your land too late to defend it. For the most part, each
generation of freeholders casts its lot with the same bann as their
fathers did, but things can and do change. No formal oaths are sworn,
and it is not unheard of, especially in the prickly central Bannorn, for
banns to court freeholders away from their neighbors--a practice which
inevitably begets feuds that last for ages.
"

The Bannorn is a collection of petty nobles, whom the freeholders gave allegiance to for protection.

That's... weird.  I don't think I've ever read that codex very closely.  It's not the early British system at all.  The reason not many people owned land in early Europe was that you had to be able to hold it against invaders.  A simple farmer can't hold land, so how did they come to actually own any at all?  You don't just go buy land at the land store- as if a simple farmer would even have the capital to do so.

In the early British system, the freeholder was the local lord who actually owned the land- because he was the only one powerful enough to be able to keep it- and this is what I was thinking of as who the bannorn represent.  Most of the people who worked the land in the early British system were tenants.  They still had rights to their land- tenancy was passed to their heirs and couldn't be divided or sold without compensation, for instance- but there had to be some sort of formal obligation to make the system work.  It makes no sense that there wouldn't be some sort of oath.  What would obligate a bann to defend a farmer who had sworn no oath to him?

Well anyway, since there's no coherent feudal system here, the discussion is moot I guess.  That's actually rather deflating.    I think I'll pretend you never pointed that codex out.  lol

Modifié par Addai67, 16 juin 2011 - 10:45 .

[Rifneno]

Wulfram wrote...

Marriages between reigning monarchs are pretty rare, though.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea, but the Landsmeet would be foolish if it didn't impose some fairly stringent conditions. 
No Orlesian forces should enter Ferelden, or Fereldan forces fight abroad, without the Landsmeet's consent, and no Orlesians should be appointed to Fereldan offices. 
Cailan should be obliged to spend 2 months out of 4 in Fereldan.
Any rights Celene might be thought to have to succeed Cailan should be explicitly declared invalid, and the Landsmeet's right to choose the next King - and indeed to depose the reigning King - should be asserted.

True, it's usually princes and princesses rather than kings and queens. And I agree with your assessment of what the Ferelden nobility should be sure to demand. I didn't mean that it was inherently a good idea, just that it isn't inherently treason.

Persephone wrote...

Yes. Just look at how well that ended for Mary Tudor.

So if I know a guy that choked on an apple, no one should eat apples. Clearly if something has gone badly for anyone, anytime, anywhere, then it should never be attempted again by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

Casting aside a loyal wife to marry your the ruler of your former oppressors isn't a betrayal?

First of all, you just referred to Anora as loyal. Holy ****. Second of all, a king is supposed to produce an heir. Why do you think Alistair will break up with a Warden he dearly loves? The apparent belief is that Anora is sterile, though it could've been Cailan. I'm inclined to think it's Anora because I can't see a human fetus surviving the subzero temperatures of that frigid horror. But I digress, it's hardly a betrayal to Ferelden for Cailan to possibly fix the heir issue while at the same time making an alliance that could save countless lives on both sides of the border. I wouldn't argue it's a betrayal to Anora but as they say, what goes around comes around.

You can't tell the difference between a tactical retreat (Something even the greatest generals have used) and cowardice?

Tactical retreat. Ha. He had no intention of engaging to begin with and there's ample evidence to that in-game.

This is the DAII forum, while discussing the situation is on topic, the billionth debate on Ostagar clearly is not.

No one is holding a gun to your head. If you don't want to discuss a topic, here's an idea: don't do it. It's a much better idea than doing it, then playing backseat moderator and complaining a particular facet of the topic is "off-topic" because you're tired of it.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
That's... weird.  I don't think I've ever read that codex very closely.  It's not the early British system at all.  The reason not many people owned land in early Europe was that you had to be able to hold it against invaders.  A simple farmer can't hold land, so how did they come to actually own any at all?  You don't just go buy land at the land store- as if a simple farmer would even have the capital to do so.

I am guessing that those freeholds were established by clans and tribes from before. Or an alliance was made between some warrior elites (who eventually became banns), and wealthier farmers (who eventually became freeholders). Or a combination of both, with weaker clans allying with militarily stronger ones for protection in exchange for part of the crop. 

It would not be too dissimilar from the Japanese feudal system. Though I do not know enough of it to say for sure.

It makes no sense that there wouldn't be some sort of oath.  What would obligate a bann to defend a farmer who had sworn no oath to him?

Money / food. And the desire to be better than the other banns, hence the petty infighting.

Well anyway, since there's no coherent feudal system here, the discussion is moot I guess.  That's actually rather deflating.    I think I'll pretend you never pointed that codex out.  lol

So you're telling me we've been arguing over this for months, based on a misunderstanding?

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
I am guessing that those freeholds were established by clans and tribes from before. Or an alliance was made between some warrior elites (who eventually became banns), and wealthier farmers (who eventually became freeholders). Or a combination of both, with weaker clans allying with militarily stronger ones for protection in exchange for part of the crop. 

It would not be too dissimilar from the Japanese feudal system. Though I do not know enough of it to say for sure.

I know nothing about Japanese feudalism, but that makes no sense in the European feudal model.  To own land, you had to hold it- which was expensive- so only a few people could do it.  In late medieval times, some tenants got prosperous enough to buy their land and become freeholders themselves, but this was rare.

It makes no sense that there wouldn't be some sort of oath.  What would obligate a bann to defend a farmer who had sworn no oath to him?

Money / food. And the desire to be better than the other banns, hence the petty infighting.

What money and what food?  In a feudal system, the lord offered protection to tenants in exchange for their labor and a portion of their crop and/or rents.  If he doesn't own the land and there's no formal agreement, he's not obligated to rent or a crop share, so what is he getting that makes it his business to defend that land?  You did have some vassals who were granted lands and a title- but there definitely was a vow of fealty involved- and that as much obligated the vassal to defend the lord's holdings as the other way around.

So you're telling me we've been arguing over this for months, based on a misunderstanding?

It seems so- but I prefer my misunderstanding because the codex makes no sense.

Modifié par Addai67, 16 juin 2011 - 11:14 .

[Persephone]

Rifneno wrote...

Persephone wrote...

Yes. Just look at how well that ended for Mary Tudor.

So if I know a guy that choked on an apple, no one should eat apples. Clearly if something has gone badly for anyone, anytime, anywhere, then it should never be attempted again by anyone, anywhere, at anytime.

Casting aside a loyal wife to marry your the ruler of your former oppressors isn't a betrayal?

First of all, you just referred to Anora as loyal. Holy ****. Second of all, a king is supposed to produce an heir. Why do you think Alistair will break up with a Warden he dearly loves? The apparent belief is that Anora is sterile, though it could've been Cailan. I'm inclined to think it's Anora because I can't see a human fetus surviving the subzero temperatures of that frigid horror. But I digress, it's hardly a betrayal to Ferelden for Cailan to possibly fix the heir issue while at the same time making an alliance that could save countless lives on both sides of the border. I wouldn't argue it's a betrayal to Anora but as they say, what goes around comes around.

You can't tell the difference between a tactical retreat (Something even the greatest generals have used) and cowardice?

Tactical retreat. Ha. He had no intention of engaging to begin with and there's ample evidence to that in-game.

1) Mary Tudor is one of many examples of such marriages going wrong. Your juvenile example does not compare in the slightest. Pretty much NO ONE in Ferelden would stand for the idea. Do a little research, be it historical or if DA related, read the DA novels.

2) Give me any proof of Anora being a disloyal wife to Cailan. She did his effin' job for him for 5 years! Even Eamon disagrees there. And yay for your disgusting sexism. Anora wasn't even 30 yet. Henry VIII waited till Katharine Of Aragon was over 40 before he ditched her to marry Anne Boleyn & get an heir. Cailan cheated on his wife yet had no illegitimate kids. So I am actually pretty sure it's his fault. Get an heir from Celene? Celene is much older than Anora, so your argument won't hold whatsoever.

3) Never intended to charge? David Gaider said otherwise and I believe it too. There is no evidence to that in game. Did he have a worst case scenario plan? (Tactical retreat) Yes, any general must have one. Never mind him begging Cailan not to risk his life like an utter moron. Cailan did not listen.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
I know nothing about Japanese feudalism, but that makes no sense in the European feudal model.  To own land, you had to hold it- which was expensive- so only a few people could do it.  In late medieval times, some tenants got prosperous enough to buy their land and become freeholders themselves, but this was rare.

That's why freeholders need protection. Because they aren't wealthy enough to hold it. Banns are wealthy enough to have some men who can protect it and in exchange, they get part of the crop.

It doesn't have to be 100% European.

What money and what food?  In a feudal system, the lord offered protection to tenants in exchange for their labor and a portion of their crop and/or rents.  If he doesn't own the land, he's not obligated to rent or a crop share, so what is he getting that makes it his business to defend that land? 

The money and food that the freeholders he protects provide. In exchange for protection.  In addition to prestige, when competing with other banns. 

So freeholder X gives allegiance to bann Y, who owns a castle and some men (which I believe is a vestige of tribalism). Bann Y offers protection, while Freeholder X provide a share of the crop and / or money, and symbolic allegience.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 16 juin 2011 - 11:17 .

[Herr Uhl]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I know nothing about Japanese feudalism, but that makes no sense in the European feudal model.  To own land, you had to hold it- which was expensive- so only a few people could do it.  In late medieval times, some tenants got prosperous enough to buy their land and become freeholders themselves, but this was rare.

That's why freeholders need protection. Because they aren't wealthy enough to hold it. Banns are wealthy enough to have some men who can protect it and in exchange, they get part of the crop.

It doesn't have to be 100% European.

Paying protection money is perfectly normal in Europe.

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
I know nothing about Japanese feudalism, but that makes no sense in the European feudal model.  To own land, you had to hold it- which was expensive- so only a few people could do it.  In late medieval times, some tenants got prosperous enough to buy their land and become freeholders themselves, but this was rare.

That's why freeholders need protection. Because they aren't wealthy enough to hold it.

Then they could never have become landholders in the first place- which is my point.  Either you own land because you're wealthy and militarily savvy enough to hold it, or someone gave it to you which implies a system of patronage.

The codex makes sense if the word is smallholders, and if you take out the phrase that says there were no oaths.  There had to be.

The money and food that the freeholders he protects provide. In exchange for protection.  In addition to prestige, when competing with other banns. 

So freeholder X gives allegiance to bann Y, who owns a castle and some men (which I believe is a vestige of tribalism). Bann Y offers protection, while Freeholder X provide a share of the crop and / or money, and symbolic allegience.

Right, so there is an obligation between the farmer and the lord, and therefore the lord does have a right to represent their interests in the political assembly, because it's a mutal interest.  He's the one who goes to the king because he's the top dog, the equivalent of a Germanic clan leader- he gets to help choose the king and is the king's representative back on his lands.

Modifié par Addai67, 17 juin 2011 - 12:22 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Addai67 wrote...
Then they could never have become landholders in the first place- which is my point.  Either you own land because you're wealthy and militarily savvy enough to hold it, or someone gave it to you which implies a system of patronage.

Hence why I am thinking that clans and tribes, and alliances amongst them, had to play a part in the tradition. As in these alliances are age old.

Right, so there is an obligation between the farmer and the lord, and therefore the lord does have a right to represent their interests in the political assembly, because it's a mutal interest.  He's the one who goes to the king because he's the top dog, the equivalent of a Germanic clan leader- he gets to help choose the king and is the king's representative back on his lands.

Yea.
Whether they do their job well and not act like idiots, is another matter.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 17 juin 2011 - 12:43 .

[Addai]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...
Yea.
Whether they do their job well and not act like idiots, is another matter.

No government is good all the time. 

It did cross my mind that the bannorn's system might be a holdover from Tevinter patronage.  In which case the customs that bound feudal lords might have gotten weakened, and the banns aren't thought to have real legitimacy because they were once stooges of the enemy.  But that still doesn't mean that a large percentage of the farmers could be freeholders- you just can't get that without a cash economy.

Anyway, interesting sidebar.  How about that Loghain.