Addai67 wrote...
You mentioned Elizabeth, though. She was on the battlefield in much the same way as Anora was. BTW it is impossible to know if Boudica actually fought, either- as far as I know there are no accounts of it. Tacitus only talks about her giving speeches to her troops. (edit: Also, the fact that she dies of poison instead of wounds tells me she was a non-combatant, was behind the lines and killed herself when she saw the battle was lost rather than be taken prisoner. There were women who fought and commanded armies in Europe, but you'd probably have to go to the Mongols to find an actual warrior queen. I'm reading a book about them right now. ^^)
Tacitus talks about lots of things, but as far as I know it's not like he was actually
there to know one way or another. His father-in-law was the military tribune there, so he no doubt had some eyewitness accounts to it, but the details are not coming from his personal experiences. When he details her speeches, it's not like he was there transcribing them. He's putting words in her mouth as a way of critiquing the rapaciousness of the Roman Empire under Emperor Domitian. It's political commentary disguised as history. As for the "fact" that she poisoned herself? I don't know. Historians aren't even sure which field the battle took place on. How much fact is it that she poisoned herself? For all I know, she could've been fighting in the main battle, made a tactical retreat, and committed suicide by poison rather than fall on some common Roman solider's blade. Maybe she thought that was more noble. Or maybe Tacitus did, and that's why he writes it that way. Or maybe she was never on the battlefield at all. Who knows? She was simply the first person that came to mind when I thought of a warrior queen. In hindsight, not the best example, given the flimsy historical evidence.
But I'm digressing to no real end. I did mention Elizabeth I, which is what I should've stuck with instead of muddling my argument.
Let me rephrase my point. The reason why I don't put Anora as equivalent to Elizabeth I as a war leader is because she's riding with the army
you gathered, after
you settled the succession to the throne, with the effort
you made to put her on it, and after
you brought her top general into line (one way or the other). The whole reason why she's even there is because of you. It's not through any war leader skills she possesses. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the pc warden is by far the closer equivalent to Elizabeth I (even if the pc warden isn't the new monarch).
Anora might very well have a knack for all things military, but if she does we're not privy to it in the course of Origins.
(By the way, what's the title of the book you're reading? It sounds like something I'd be interested in.)
No more than Cailan was. If ability had been the only criterion for succession, Cailan would probably not have had the throne.
I don't disagree.
The battle plan was Loghain's, not Cailan's, and there's no telling whether or not Cailan would have agreed with Loghain about the decision to abandon the field if the roles were reversed- or let's say Maric, who was not quite as hot-headed as his son. The horde was much larger than any of them anticipated. Loghain made a judgment call. A commander is expected to do that. Calling it "treason" is kind of meaningless. Cailan is not Ferelden, even if you could argue that Loghain's action was intended as a deliberate assault on him.
I'm operating on a different set of assumptions. My thinking was that the battle was perfectly winnable, and that Loghain purposefully left him there to die. It could've been a sound judgement call from a military perspective to leave him there and pull his troops out. His later actions contradict this though. Right up and through the Landsmeet he believes that what they're dealing with isn't a Blight, and that bringing the nobility into line is a greater threat than the darkspawn. How can think it's both too great a threat to deal with and no threat at all? It'd be one thing if he was making a tactical retreat to reinforce his army. Instead, he retreats and then largely ignores the darkspawn.
And if the reason for him leaving is really because the darkspawn horde is too large, why does he wait so late in the battle to withdraw? Why not pull out, say, as soon as the darkspawn emerge from the forest and charge the front lines? (Story reasons, sure, I get it. It's more dramatic to have him withdraw after all the trouble you went through to light the beacon. But that's how it's presented to us.) Cailan is not literally Fereldan, but he is the ruling monarch--which makes betraying him to death an act of betraying Fereldan, which is treason.
How is this distinction meaningless? We're looking at Loghain's actions in the context of the actions the pc warden takes against him up and through to the Landsmeet and how legitimate those actions are. I think it's a distinction worth making.
Modifié par BlackEmperor, 27 octobre 2011 - 01:16 .
Not agree indeed.
Retour en haut
)
