210 réponses à ce sujet

[AlexMBrennan]

Barquiel wrote...

That's like blaming Poland, France and England for the outbreak of WW2.

You haven't heard of Godwin's law, then? 

[Barquiel]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Barquiel wrote...

That's like blaming Poland, France and England for the outbreak of WW2.

No, it's not. If they attacked the Quarians on that world, what was it called? That would be like blaming Poland.

What the Krogan were doing was occupying the Rheinland and saying "try and stop us."

You mean the asari? And they attacked the asari on that world.

Forst1999 has already posted the codex entry on the Krogan rebellions.

After the Rachni War, the quick-breeding krogan expanded at the expense of their neighbors. Warlords leveraged their veteran soldiers to seize living space while the Council races were still grateful. Over centuries, the krogan conquered world after world. There was always "just one more" needed. When the Council finally demanded withdrawal from the asari colony of Lusia, krogan Overlord Kredak stormed off the Citadel, daring the Council to take their worlds back.

The krogan conquered planets -> the used violence

[Steelcan]

Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

[Steelcan]

The description in question mentions an attempted annexation, which can be interpreted as violent or non-violent action on the part of the Krogan. I'm inclined to believe it was a non-violent attempt to out compete the local Asari population. Because the description does not mention an invasion or any hostility on the planet.

The Asari were understandably nervous about such a large presence so close to Thessia. So they had the council start a war they couldn't win.

[fiendishchicken]

Steelcan wrote...

Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

Colonizing =/= Conquering.

The British didn't conquer India. They colonized it.

America was not conquered. There was really no one to conquer. The Native Americans traded with the English, and eventually (through force, famine, and disease) assimilated.

A conquest is a dedicated military campaign over a foreign land with the intent to capture that land and it's people.

[Mr.House]

Steelcan wrote...

Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

Because the krogans back then(when even Wrex and Eve have comfirmed krogan where very ruthless and violent back then) where doing treaties right? Give me a break.

[Belisarius25]

Steelcan wrote...

Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

The British Empire didn't 'conquer' India through treaties - the East India Company did have proxies/"friendly" local rulers and kept the peace using treaties, but those treaties were backed primarily by economic and political pressure.

In addition, it quite often used military force - against the French/the French proxies (Plessy) and against the Mughals directly a few years after that. There were multiple wars between the British (including the East India Company) and various native rulers and the British directly and forcibly annexed multiple regions during the latter half of the 18th century and into the 19th. Direct British rule was largely a result of another military confrontation (the Indian Rebellion of 1857), at which point Parliament essentially liquidated the Company and seized control of India.

The colonization of the Americas was also pretty violent. The (relatively) small population of natives/colonists is why the body count remained fairly low in the British colonies. It got pretty nasty elsewhere (especially with the Spanish).

Regardless, I'm still not seeing any good reason to think the Krogan were being diplomatic or reasonable. Even Wrex - presented as an extremely progressive (modern) Krogan is fine with using pressure to get colonies, what would one of the older Krogan do?

Modifié par Belisarius25, 24 janvier 2013 - 06:01 .

[Steelcan]

Mr.House wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

Because the krogans back then(when even Wrex and Eve have comfirmed krogan where very ruthless and violent back then) where doing treaties right? Give me a break.

. I was just pointing out that conquest of land is not dependent on war.

[Steelcan]

Belisarius25 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

The British Empire didn't 'conquer' India through treaties - the East India Company did have proxies/"friendly" local rulers and kept the peace using treaties, but those treaties were backed primarily by economic and political pressure.

In addition, it quite often used military force - against the French/the French proxies (Plessy) and against the Mughals directly a few years after that. There were multiple wars between the British (including the East India Company) and various native rulers and the British directly and forcibly annexed multiple regions during the latter half of the 18th century and into the 19th. Direct British rule was largely a result of another military confrontation (the Indian Rebellion of 1857), at which point Parliament essentially liquidated the Company and seized control of India.

I'd also question your assertion that the colonization of the Americas wasn't inherently violent. It was quite violent.

. The East India Company, and thus Britain, was in charge of India.  They attained this power through deals with local rulers.  They didnt invade India and kill all the locals to establish their rule.

A d the British colonization, Plymouth, Virginia, Massachusetts, Carolina, all were largely uninhabited by native Americans because of the diseases.  The conflicts emerged about 50 years later when they ran into tribes still alive.

Modifié par Steelcan, 24 janvier 2013 - 06:01 .

[Steelcan]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

Colonizing =/= Conquering.

The British didn't conquer India. They colonized it.

. They had rule over the Indian populace.  It was theirs.  They conquered it.

[CynicalShep]

Well, blame the Salarians - for a bunch of geniuses they sure enjoy shooting themselves in the foot a lot. Last time I checked they were "uplifting" the Yahg.
As about the colony - judging by how spineless the Council is I'm pretty sure it took an extraordinary event for them to get involved. That and the fact that it was an Asari world (and Asari are manipualtive blue witches)

[Belisarius25]

Steelcan wrote...

Belisarius25 wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

The British Empire didn't 'conquer' India through treaties - the East India Company did have proxies/"friendly" local rulers and kept the peace using treaties, but those treaties were backed primarily by economic and political pressure.

In addition, it quite often used military force - against the French/the French proxies (Plessy) and against the Mughals directly a few years after that. There were multiple wars between the British (including the East India Company) and various native rulers and the British directly and forcibly annexed multiple regions during the latter half of the 18th century and into the 19th. Direct British rule was largely a result of another military confrontation (the Indian Rebellion of 1857), at which point Parliament essentially liquidated the Company and seized control of India.

I'd also question your assertion that the colonization of the Americas wasn't inherently violent. It was quite violent.

. The East India Company, and thus Britain, was in charge of India.  They attained this power through deals with local rulers.  They didnt invade India and kill all the locals to establish their rule.

No, they definitely didn't just acquire power through deals, and I didn't say anything about 'killing all the locals'. They did fight multiple wars against local rulers - the Mughals, the Sikhs, puppets that rebelled. It certainly wasn't some peaceful, benevolent takeover.

A d the British colonization, Plymouth, Virginia, Massachusetts, Carolina, all were largely uninhabited by native Americans because of the diseases.  The conflicts emerged about 50 years later when they ran into tribes still alive.

So it was peaceful until they ran into actual natives (leaving aside the accuracy of what you're saying)? Not exactly a compelling argument.

[The Night Mammoth]

Steelcan wrote...

The description in question mentions an attempted annexation, which can be interpreted as violent or non-violent action on the part of the Krogan.

If it weren't krogan, and if it weren't a heavily populated asari world with billions of people on it, and if the krogan weren't already described as having conquered planets before, sure.

I'm inclined to believe it was a non-violent attempt to out compete the local Asari population. Because the description does not mention an invasion or any hostility on the planet.

You're inclined to believe that because of blatant bias and denial. 

The Asari were understandably nervous about such a large presence so close to Thessia. So they had the council start a war they couldn't win.

The krogan were defeated. 

I don't see what's so hard to understand. The krogan were violent and quickly expanding warrior species, who spent years conquering planets, and they came along to an established asari colony that they really had no right to occupy, peacefully or otherwise, and attempted to annex it (not colonize or out-compete) because they had enough force to make sure the asari couldn't fight back by themselves. The krogan don't do peaceful, they don't get what they want by 'out-competing' the locals. How could they even attempt to out-compete billions of asari on their own turf? It doesn't make sense. 

The only explanation is that they tried to take things by force, and the Council responded in kind. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 24 janvier 2013 - 06:15 .

[fiendishchicken]

Steelcan wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Conquering isn't inherently violent. The British empire conquered India through carefully negotiated treaties. Britain conquered the Americas by colonizing them.

Colonizing =/= Conquering.

The British didn't conquer India. They colonized it.

. They had rule over the Indian populace.  It was theirs.  They conquered it.

No. They didn't.

I'm wondering man, I know you're smart, but have you read history? The East India Trading company basically made treaties with the local leaders to move themselves into positions of influence. As more resources were in demand from India, more British citizens came and settled there. There was opposition, but it was actually caused by internal conflict among the Indians. They fought amongst themselves. The British themselves acted almost entirely through the EIT, which sort of ruled India with their own shadow as they installed sympathetic Indian leaders over the people. As the EIT went bankrupt, the British had to move in to take over the holdings. It was much more of a corporate handover than a conquest.

[Steelcan]

The Night Mammoth wrote...
The krogan were defeated. 

I don't see what's so hard to understand. The krogan were violent and quickly expanding warrior species, who spent years conquering planets, and they came along to an established asari colony that they really had no right to occupy, peacefully or otherwise, and attempted to annex it (not colonize or out-compete) because they had enough force to make sure the asari couldn't fight back by themselves. The krogan don't do peaceful, they don't get what they want by 'out-competing' the locals. How could they even attempt to out-compete billions of asari on their own turf? It doesn't make sense. 

The only explanation is that they tried to take things by force, and the Council responded in kind. 

. The Krogan were only defeated because of the Turians AND the genophage.  The Asari and Salarians were losing the war.  

This isn't hard to understand I agree.  In the description there is no evidence of direct aggression by the Krogan.  If I missed it please point it out.  Is is it reasonable to assume that the Krogan were hostile? Yes.  But it's also plausible that the Krogan were simply threatening the Asari by their presence.  

Modifié par Steelcan, 24 janvier 2013 - 06:39 .

[Steelcan]

fiendishchicken wrote...

No. They didn't.

I'm wondering man, I know you're smart, but have you read history? The East India Trading company basically made treaties with the local leaders to move themselves into positions of influence. As more resources were in demand from India, more British citizens came and settled there. There was opposition, but it was actually caused by internal conflict among the Indians. They fought amongst themselves. The British themselves acted almost entirely through the EIT, which sort of ruled India with their own shadow as they installed sympathetic Indian leaders over the people. As the EIT went bankrupt, the British had to move in to take over the holdings. It was much more of a corporate handover than a conquest.

. But the end result is British control over India accomplished without direct involvement of the British Army.  You proved my point.  Conquest doesn't have to be violent.  

[Steelcan]

Belisarius25 wrote...

A d the British colonization, Plymouth, Virginia, Massachusetts, Carolina, all were largely uninhabited by native Americans because of the diseases.  The conflicts emerged about 50 years later when they ran into tribes still alive.

So it was peaceful until they ran into actual natives (leaving aside the accuracy of what you're saying)? Not exactly a compelling argument.

Looking back at that sentence I have no idea what I was trying to say.

Why I think I meant to say is, British colonization of the Americas was largely peaceful.  They didnt deploy armies or navies to dominate the locals.  They just had lots of people who outcompeted the locals by the use of superior technology, disease immunity, and higher fertility rates.  Conflicts only arose some years later when the remaining tribes tried to fight back, but it was too late for them.

[fiendishchicken]

Steelcan wrote...
 But the end result is British control over India accomplished without direct involvement of the British Army.  You proved my point.  Conquest doesn't have to be violent.  

I proved nothing. There was no conquest.

Unless being used in allegorical form that has to do with some kind of victory, the word conquest is strictly military in usage.

The British never invaded India. They never used military power against the Indians. They colonized them and expanded interests there, with the consent of Indian leaders, and eventually gained influence over the Indians with bribes, blackmail, and the occasional threat. 

They did send military interventions to put down uprisings and civil disturbances.

[The Night Mammoth]

Steelcan wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...
The krogan were defeated. 

I don't see what's so hard to understand. The krogan were violent and quickly expanding warrior species, who spent years conquering planets, and they came along to an established asari colony that they really had no right to occupy, peacefully or otherwise, and attempted to annex it (not colonize or out-compete) because they had enough force to make sure the asari couldn't fight back by themselves. The krogan don't do peaceful, they don't get what they want by 'out-competing' the locals. How could they even attempt to out-compete billions of asari on their own turf? It doesn't make sense. 

The only explanation is that they tried to take things by force, and the Council responded in kind. 

. The Krogan were only defeated because of the Turians AND the genophage.  The Asari and Salarians were losing the war.  

Doesn't matter, they still lost. 

This isn't hard to understand I agree.  In the description there is no evidence of direct aggression by the Krogan.  If I missed it please point it out.  Is is it reasonable to assume that the Krogan were hostile? Yes.  But it's also plausible that the Krogan were simply threatening the Asari by their presence.  

It's not implausible, it's just incredibly unlikely. it's far more likely that they went in and took what they wanted using force, because that's the way the krogan have always been, they way they acted for years preceeding, because they refused to leave when asked, fought when confronted, couldn't 'out-compete' on a colony that well established, and the word used is 'annex', which does not imply something passive or peaceful.

[Steelcan]

fiendishchicken wrote...

Steelcan wrote...
 But the end result is British control over India accomplished without direct involvement of the British Army.  You proved my point.  Conquest doesn't have to be violent.  

I proved nothing. There was no conquest.

Unless being used in allegorical form that has to do with some kind of victory, the word conquest is strictly military in usage.

The British never invaded India. They never used military power against the Indians. They colonized them and expanded interests there, with the consent of Indian leaders, and eventually gained influence over the Indians with bribes, blackmail, and the occasional threat. 

They did send military interventions to put down uprisings and civil disturbances.

. I think we are operations off two different idea of "conquest".  You are using it only in the military sense, whereas I am using as any form of rule of another.

[Steelcan]

The Night Mammoth write...

This isn't hard to understand I agree.  In the description there is no evidence of direct aggression by the Krogan.  If I missed it please point it out.  Is is it reasonable to assume that the Krogan were hostile? Yes.  But it's also plausible that the Krogan were simply threatening the Asari by their presence.  

It's not implausible, it's just incredibly unlikely. it's far more likely that they went in and took what they wanted using force, because that's the way the krogan have always been, they way they acted for years preceeding, because they refused to leave when asked, fought when confronted, couldn't 'out-compete' on a colony that well established, and the word used is 'annex', which does not imply something passive or peaceful.

. Annexation can be peaceful as I've demonstrated numerous times.  Is is always? No, but it still can be.  And if the Krogan flat out attacked a council world then that would have been what started the Krogan rebellions.  Not the council cutting off supplies to a stranded Krogan populace, civilian or military.

[Han Shot First]

Wulfram wrote...

The Krogan were invading a council world. How is that not "firing the first shot"?

Pretty much this.

Lusia was a planet belonging to the Asari Republics, and thus part of Council space. The Krogan hit first. The Council just hit back harder. Even if there were no Asari defense forces stationed on Lusia and the occupation occured without a shot being fired, it would still be considered a hostile act.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 24 janvier 2013 - 07:13 .

[Steelcan]

Han Shot First wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The Krogan were invading a council world. How is that not "firing the first shot"?

Pretty much this.

Lusia was a planet belonging to the Asari Republics, and thus part of Council space. The Krogan hit first. The Council just hit back harder.

. The problem with that is that in the description it doesn't mention any invasion.  

[JBPBRC]

Han Shot First wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

The Krogan were invading a council world. How is that not "firing the first shot"?

Pretty much this.

Lusia was a planet belonging to the Asari Republics, and thus part of Council space. The Krogan hit first. The Council just hit back harder.

This. The Krogan don't exactly strike me as the type to go for this peaceful annexation nonsense that has been discussed back and forth in this thread. They're the Mass Effect expy of Klingons. A violent, bloodraging warrior race for whom conflict is the ultimate answer to everything. Of course the Krogans fired the first shot.