Bleachrude wrote...
The problem with the "retreat at ostagar wasn't treason" is that it is written by people that I think after the fact, wanted it to be seen as potentially not a clear-cut choice.
Think about the sequence of events..
If Loghain is waiting on the beacon to charge, this means that Loghain can't effectively see the battle (otherwise one wouldn't need a SIGNAL) thus, Loghain wouldn't retreat since he wouldn't know what the situation was...
If Loghain does retreat before the battle because he thinks there are too many darkspawn, then what was the purpose of sending two grey wardens to the Tower?
And again, I know the writers wanted us to think of Loghain as being some "military genius" (although reading the Stolen Throne I'm thinking Katriel's help gets underestimated) but a battle plan that left no out for half the army if things went to seed?
Someone needs to read Sun Tzu's "Art of War" - Chapter 4 Positioning
Okay, I need to save this somewhere so I can copy paste. This is my take on events at Ostagar.
We are told that the fortress had been used for years against the "barbarians" by the Tevinters. That was why it was chosen as a defensive position. Sun Tzu can't argue with results.
The strategy at Ostagar was a classic envelopment. Draw the enemies into a deep valley and close the door behind them. The Fereldans had the advantage of the heights, and a chokepoint makes for an excellent defensive position if all goes well, see battle of Marathon.
All didn't go well. The horde was much larger than anticipated, too large for them to all get into the valley before the vanguard is crushed. If you try to flank an army with deep reinforcements, all you end up doing is getting cut in half yourself. This also explains how Loghain could know that the battle was lost even from his vantage point- he could see the horde stretching out over that hillside without end. The fact that the Wardens tried to send his troops in anyway could have reinforced his belief that they were careless with Fereldan lives.
It was not Loghain's idea for Cailan to be in the vanguard at the head of the valley, a dangerous position for anyone let alone the king. He tried to talk him out of it. Nevertheless, he did make plans to abandon the field if necessary, including wanting to be in control of the tower signal. How justifiable you find his actions depends on perspective.
Hell, I don't even understand why Loghain needs to be made a warden to be a general..The same reason why Loghain gave Cailan as to why the king shouldn't be upfront applies to the bloody general..Especially in Ferelden where you don't seem to have the modern day General Staff...
I think the idea is that he is always found guilty of treason, but you can decide that a more fitting end for him is to fight with the order he tried to undermine. Being a Warden also will cut him off from further influence in Fereldan politics- theoretically.
(A lot of people tend to see the Landsmeet as a Loghain vs Alistair debate..personally I don't as there are a whole whack of reasons irrespective of alistair as to why Loghain needs to die. There's an interesting part in DA2 where Aveline talks about Ostagar - Ms. No-nonsense herself would gut Loghain faster than alistair would IMO...."and you want to make Loghain general of your armies?
Yeah, so what. Aveline has her perspective just as anyone else does. She was in the vanguard (though I find it hard to believe any made it out alive), so obviously she's bitter about being left in the lurch. Soldiers leaving Ferelden are obviously not ones who are in favor of Loghain, unless they're just cowards. Of course they could have stayed and fought against him if they were so incensed, but that's a complaint for the DA2 board.
Modifié par Addai67, 05 juillet 2011 - 03:49 .