1256 réponses à ce sujet

[cjones91]

azarhal wrote...

ianvillan wrote...

azarhal wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Dalish also write down their stories, as Gisharel wrote some narratives. Merrill collected lore about the Eluvian, for example. It's not all oral information.

azarhal wrote...

That tale in a few lines jump from the death of Andraste, to elves being removed from Halamshiral to them becoming City Elves or Dalish. That didn't happen overnight. It's 400 years of history condensed into "We are poor defenseless Elves and the Chantry is evil" tale.

As opposed to the Andrastian Chantry version that vilifies the elves and promotes the Chantry of Andraste as altruistic and beneficial.

The elven tale do not provide a detailed account of what happened, it skip everything about the conflict to focus on the elven love for playing victims. The Chantry version provide a detailed account of what happened.

If you believe the group that skip the entire war to go the conclusion be my guess, but don't go saying that the Chantry is biased just because it actually provide details...that you don't like.

A detailed account according to whom, the Chantry who would in no way omit details or fabricate claims to suit there needs.

What details does it provide about the Orlisan battles in the war, all it says is how the Elves who were sacrificing Humans did an attack against a defenceless town so they called and exulted march. Is their an account about the attack on the Dales by the Orlisans and what was involved or about what happened in the peace treaty etc. All we get is a story how an innocent and defenceless Orlais was attacked and was charitable and merciful to the Elves in victory.

A detailed account is an account that, you know, mention details about the event(s) it is referencing to.

The elves got a tiny tale that span 400 years and paint them as being totally defenseless when the Templars came. Not a single details about their actions in a war that lasted a decade.

The Chantry has multiple entries talking about the war with the Dales. One mentions the attack on Red Crossing which started the war on the Orlesian side from their point-of-view. Another, mention elves taking over Montsimmard and the elves sacking Val-Royaux (World of Thedas) later in the war.

Yes, the Chantry has the winner version labelled everywhere, but it mention historical events that happened in the war, while the elvish tales skip everything beside the ending.

Please...if the Chantry was in the right then why did they strike the Canticles of Shartan from the Chant of Light?That right there says to me they have no problem editing history if it suits them.

[cjones91]

azarhal wrote...

LobselVith8 wrote...

The Dalish also write down their stories, as Gisharel wrote some narratives. Merrill collected lore about the Eluvian, for example. It's not all oral information.

azarhal wrote...

That tale in a few lines jump from the death of Andraste, to elves being removed from Halamshiral to them becoming City Elves or Dalish. That didn't happen overnight. It's 400 years of history condensed into "We are poor defenseless Elves and the Chantry is evil" tale.

As opposed to the Andrastian Chantry version that vilifies the elves and promotes the Chantry of Andraste as altruistic and beneficial.

The elven tale do not provide a detailed account of what happened, it skip everything about the conflict to focus on the elven love for playing victims. The Chantry version provide a detailed account of what happened.

If you believe the group that skip the entire war to go the conclusion be my guess, but don't go saying that the Chantry is biased just because it actually provide details...that you don't like.

The Chantry's version is full of BS too.

[MisterJB]

cjones91 wrote...
Please...if the Chantry was in the right then why did they strike the Canticles of Shartan from the Chant of Light?That right there says to me they have no problem editing history if it suits them.

Considering how the elves sacked Val-Royeaux which also happens to be the seat of the Chantry, them being ,understandably, angry enough to remove Shartan sounds quite possible.

And, if you are going to use alterations or omitions on historical documents as proof of guilt, you can start by the elves since not a single one of them ever admitted how they had actually been winning the war for some time.

Chantry Version: During the Second Blight, the elves watched humans die at Darkspawn hands. Afterwards, they refused all attempt at civilized discourse and trade. Border conflicts led to the attack on the the city of Red Crossing. Orlais attacked the Dales because of this but they were driven back. After the elves sacked Val-Royeaux, an Exhalted March was called. Eventually the elves were defeated.

Elven Version: The humans resented us because we put our people first and didn't worship their god. They sent missionaries and, when these were refused, Templars. They stole our home from us. The End.

Even a layman should be able to see which is the more credible version.

[cjones91]

MisterJB wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Please...if the Chantry was in the right then why did they strike the Canticles of Shartan from the Chant of Light?That right there says to me they have no problem editing history if it suits them.

Considering how the elves sacked Val-Royeaux which also happens to be the seat of the Chantry, them being ,understandably, angry enough to remove Shartan sounds quite possible.

And, if you are going to use alterations or omitions on historical documents as proof of guilt, you can start by the elves since not a single one of them ever admitted how they had actually been winning the war for some time.

Chantry Version: During the Second Blight, the elves watched humans die at Darkspawn hands. Afterwards, they refused all attempt at civilized discourse and trade. Border conflicts led to the attack on the the city of Red Crossing. Orlais attacked the Dales because of this but they were driven back. After the elves sacked Val-Royeaux, an Exhalted March was called. Eventually the elves were defeated.

Elven Version: The humans resented us because we put our people first and didn't worship their god. They sent missionaries and, when these were refused, Templars. They stole our home from us. The End.

Even a layman should be able to see which is the more credible version.

Both stories have biases but only one side had a reputation of invading other countries and a ruthless expansionist philsophy at the time.I just don't buy the bull of the Chantry/Orlais being completely innocent and how they would never alter historical events to suit them like some people believe.

Also considering how Shartan and the elves helped their Prophet the Chantry had no right to remove their contributions simply because they were pissy about the Dales possibly counter attacking after their templars tried to strong arm the elves.

[MisterJB]

cjones91 wrote...
Both stories have biases but only one side had a reputation of invading other countries and a ruthless expansionist philsophy at the time.I just don't buy the bull of the Chantry/Orlais being completely innocent and how they would never alter historical events to suit them like some people believe.

Also considering how Shartan and the elves helped their Prophet the Chantry had no right to remove their contributions simply because they were pissy about the Dales possibly counter attacking after their templars tried to strong arm the elves.

It's not a matter of both stories having biases. It's a matter of the Chantry actually providing plausible reasons for this war that match historical elven behavior; elven isolationism leading into borders conflicts which eventually escalate into open war; while the elves would have us believe the whole thing was fought because the humans just couldn't accept how different the elves are; which is just silly.
I don't know if the Chantry was completely innocent but events like the sacking of one of the world's most important cities is not something that can be fabricated and it's a fact that the elves never really own up to how this is what lead to an Exhalted March.

The elves helped Andraste and then tried to destroy their religion. The Chantry had every right to be furious.

[cjones91]

MisterJB wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Both stories have biases but only one side had a reputation of invading other countries and a ruthless expansionist philsophy at the time.I just don't buy the bull of the Chantry/Orlais being completely innocent and how they would never alter historical events to suit them like some people believe.

Also considering how Shartan and the elves helped their Prophet the Chantry had no right to remove their contributions simply because they were pissy about the Dales possibly counter attacking after their templars tried to strong arm the elves.

It's not a matter of both stories having biases. It's a matter of the Chantry actually providing plausible reasons for this war that match historical elven behavior; elven isolationism leading into borders conflicts which eventually escalate into open war; while the elves would have us believe the whole thing was fought because the humans just couldn't accept how different the elves are; which is just silly.
I don't know if the Chantry was completely innocent but events like the sacking of one of the world's most important cities is not something that can be fabricated and it's a fact that the elves never really own up to how this is what lead to an Exhalted March.

The elves helped Andraste and then tried to destroy their religion. The Chantry had every right to be furious.

The elves just wanted to be left alone.Considering Orlais wanted to control the entire south of Thedas and beyond, do you really think they would have just left the Dales alone after regaining their strength from the Second Blight?And the elves never wanted to destroy Adrastism since they owe their freedom and lives to the woman the religion is based around.

[dragondreamer]

Elves retaliating at the Chantry and its seat in Orlais isn't exactly shocking if Templars were being sent into the Dales against their wishes. The Chantry crushing an entire nation for daring to protect itself against belligerent outsiders was both excessive and a smear on their own beliefs. It was Andraste's will that the Dales belong to the elves, and the Chantry had to omit an entire book from the Chant of Light to cover their own hypocrisy.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Sacking a capital goes far beyond protecting itself. Otherwise Orlais can just as easily claim it was protecting itself from the elves conquering and sacking their cities by crushing the Dales.

[ianvillan]

MisterJB wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Both stories have biases but only one side had a reputation of invading other countries and a ruthless expansionist philsophy at the time.I just don't buy the bull of the Chantry/Orlais being completely innocent and how they would never alter historical events to suit them like some people believe.

Also considering how Shartan and the elves helped their Prophet the Chantry had no right to remove their contributions simply because they were pissy about the Dales possibly counter attacking after their templars tried to strong arm the elves.

It's not a matter of both stories having biases. It's a matter of the Chantry actually providing plausible reasons for this war that match historical elven behavior; elven isolationism leading into borders conflicts which eventually escalate into open war; while the elves would have us believe the whole thing was fought because the humans just couldn't accept how different the elves are; which is just silly.
I don't know if the Chantry was completely innocent but events like the sacking of one of the world's most important cities is not something that can be fabricated and it's a fact that the elves never really own up to how this is what lead to an Exhalted March.

The elves helped Andraste and then tried to destroy their religion. The Chantry had every right to be furious.

It is also plausible that the Chantry being angry with the Elves not fighting in the blight try to bully them into accepting there religion when the Elves are known to be isolationists and Xenophobic, The Chantry keeps pushing believing themselves superior to the Elves and hoping to start an argument so they can punish the Elves, but they bit off more then they realised and when the Elves were beating the Chantry and on the verge of winning they went crying to the rest of the Human nations to help them defeat the Elves and get what they wanted.

[Reaverwind]

MisterJB wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Please...if the Chantry was in the right then why did they strike the Canticles of Shartan from the Chant of Light?That right there says to me they have no problem editing history if it suits them.

Considering how the elves sacked Val-Royeaux which also happens to be the seat of the Chantry, them being ,understandably, angry enough to remove Shartan sounds quite possible.

And, if you are going to use alterations or omitions on historical documents as proof of guilt, you can start by the elves since not a single one of them ever admitted how they had actually been winning the war for some time.

Chantry Version: During the Second Blight, the elves watched humans die at Darkspawn hands. Afterwards, they refused all attempt at civilized discourse and trade. Border conflicts led to the attack on the the city of Red Crossing. Orlais attacked the Dales because of this but they were driven back. After the elves sacked Val-Royeaux, an Exhalted March was called. Eventually the elves were defeated.

Elven Version: The humans resented us because we put our people first and didn't worship their god. They sent missionaries and, when these were refused, Templars. They stole our home from us. The End.

Even a layman should be able to see which is the more credible version.

Indeed, you'd think the elves would want to play up the fact they were kicking Orlesian ass, before other nations got involved. Of course, they'd also have to admit they made a strategic blunder in taking Val Royeaux.

[cjones91]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Sacking a capital goes far beyond protecting itself. Otherwise Orlais can just as easily claim it was protecting itself from the elves conquering and sacking their cities by crushing the Dales.

Yes it is protecting your nation.If the enemy encroaches on your country and refuses to leave then you are justified in launching a attack on one of their cities.

Modifié par cjones91, 25 septembre 2013 - 08:14 .

[cjones91]

Reaverwind wrote...

MisterJB wrote...

cjones91 wrote...
Please...if the Chantry was in the right then why did they strike the Canticles of Shartan from the Chant of Light?That right there says to me they have no problem editing history if it suits them.

Considering how the elves sacked Val-Royeaux which also happens to be the seat of the Chantry, them being ,understandably, angry enough to remove Shartan sounds quite possible.

And, if you are going to use alterations or omitions on historical documents as proof of guilt, you can start by the elves since not a single one of them ever admitted how they had actually been winning the war for some time.

Chantry Version: During the Second Blight, the elves watched humans die at Darkspawn hands. Afterwards, they refused all attempt at civilized discourse and trade. Border conflicts led to the attack on the the city of Red Crossing. Orlais attacked the Dales because of this but they were driven back. After the elves sacked Val-Royeaux, an Exhalted March was called. Eventually the elves were defeated.

Elven Version: The humans resented us because we put our people first and didn't worship their god. They sent missionaries and, when these were refused, Templars. They stole our home from us. The End.

Even a layman should be able to see which is the more credible version.

Indeed, you'd think the elves would want to play up the fact they were kicking Orlesian ass, before other nations got involved. Of course, they'd also have to admit they made a strategic blunder in taking Val Royeaux.

So I guess Orlais' reputation of invading other countries did'nt play a part in it huh?

[dragondreamer]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Sacking a capital goes far beyond protecting itself. Otherwise Orlais can just as easily claim it was protecting itself from the elves conquering and sacking their cities by crushing the Dales.

Considering what happened, maybe the elves knew they were fighting for everything.  Wouldn't be the first time in their history, after all.  The ancient elves were all diplomacy and playing nice, and it came to bite them in the rear.  And sure Orlais can claim what they want, but what do they expect when they try to force their troops into other countries?

[Reaverwind]

cjones91 wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

Indeed, you'd think the elves would want to play up the fact they were kicking Orlesian ass, before other nations got involved. Of course, they'd also have to admit they made a strategic blunder in taking Val Royeaux.

So I guess Orlais' reputation of invading other countries did'nt play a part in it huh?

Strategic blunder is strategic blunder. Had the elves not over-reached, they might not have lost the Dales.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 25 septembre 2013 - 08:23 .

[cjones91]

dragondreamer wrote...

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Sacking a capital goes far beyond protecting itself. Otherwise Orlais can just as easily claim it was protecting itself from the elves conquering and sacking their cities by crushing the Dales.

Considering what happened, maybe the elves knew they were fighting for everything.  Wouldn't be the first time in their history, after all.  The ancient elves were all diplomacy and playing nice, and it came to bite them in the rear.  And sure Orlais can claim what they want, but what do they expect when they try to force their troops into other countries?

Not to mention you have to look at things from the Dales' POV,you have a nation that gained the reputation of invading countries by claiming to "help" during Blights and they send soilders that never leave after the Blight ends.

To a nation that just wants to be left alone the fact Orlais/Chantry tried to send missionaries in their lands could have been a provocation because those missionaries could have been spies that were sent to monitor the Dales's strength.

[cjones91]

Reaverwind wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

Indeed, you'd think the elves would want to play up the fact they were kicking Orlesian ass, before other nations got involved. Of course, they'd also have to admit they made a strategic blunder in taking Val Royeaux.

So I guess Orlais' reputation of invading other countries did'nt play a part in it huh?

Strategic blunder is strategic blunder. Had the elves not over-reached, they might not have lost the Dales.

I'm sure Orlais probaly had something to do with the response by poking the proverbial bear until it attacked.

[ianvillan]

The Chantry was willing to declare an exulted march against the Dwarves over the slightest provocation when the Dwarves had done nothing to them and are not interested in the surface. This happened as well just after a blight maybe the Chantry gets scared after blights and declares exulted marches to rally the andrasten people back under their banner and to show that they are still powerful.

[LobselVith8]

azarhal wrote...

A detailed account is an account that, you know, mention details about the event(s) it is referencing to.

The elves got a tiny tale that span 400 years and paint them as being totally defenseless when the Templars came. Not a single details about their actions in a war that lasted a decade.

Because the Dalish version focuses on the fact that they lost their culture and homeland, and another entry addresses the elves who submitted to human rule after the fall of the Dales.

azarhal wrote...

The Chantry has multiple entries talking about the war with the Dales. One mentions the attack on Red Crossing which started the war on the Orlesian side from their point-of-view. Another, mention elves taking over Montsimmard and the elves sacking Val-Royaux (World of Thedas) later in the war.

It still only has one version: that the elves started the war, and that the Chantry is completely blameless. Neither entry proves the Chantry version to be more accurate than the Dalish version.

azarhal wrote...

Yes, the Chantry has the winner version labelled everywhere, but it mention historical events that happened in the war, while the elvish tales skip everything beside the ending. 

The Dalish entry focused on the loss of their culture and homeland, while the Chantry version painted the elves as villains and made it seem as though the Chantry generous in how they treated the elves who submitted to human rule.

[maliluka]

cjones91 wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

cjones91 wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

Indeed, you'd think the elves would want to play up the fact they were kicking Orlesian ass, before other nations got involved. Of course, they'd also have to admit they made a strategic blunder in taking Val Royeaux.

So I guess Orlais' reputation of invading other countries did'nt play a part in it huh?

Strategic blunder is strategic blunder. Had the elves not over-reached, they might not have lost the Dales.

I'm sure Orlais probaly had something to do with the response by poking the proverbial bear until it attacked.

Yes, I suppose some people think the Elves should have just written a strongly worded cease and desist letter

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Yes there is no possible response in between strongly worded letter and destroying the enemy's capital. It has to be one or the other.

cjones91 wrote...

Not to mention you have to look at things from the Dales' POV,you have a nation that gained the reputation of invading countries by claiming to "help" during Blights and they send soilders that never leave after the Blight ends.

To a nation that just wants to be left alone the fact Orlais/Chantry tried to send missionaries in their lands could have been a provocation because those missionaries could have been spies that were sent to monitor the Dales's strength.

Orlais didn't have that reputation back then. It occured after the Third Blight. If the Dales considered sending missionaries as a justifaction for war then they really are at fault.

[ianvillan]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Yes there is no possible response in between strongly worded letter and destroying the enemy's capital. It has to be one or the other.

cjones91 wrote...

Not to mention you have to look at things from the Dales' POV,you have a nation that gained the reputation of invading countries by claiming to "help" during Blights and they send soilders that never leave after the Blight ends.

To a nation that just wants to be left alone the fact Orlais/Chantry tried to send missionaries in their lands could have been a provocation because those missionaries could have been spies that were sent to monitor the Dales's strength.

Orlais didn't have that reputation back then. It occured after the Third Blight. If the Dales considered sending missionaries as a justifaction for war then they really are at fault.

After the missionaries were refused they then sent Templars, are we to believe that the Templars they sent to ensure the missionaries got through never drew their swords and attacked the Elves, Who's to say the Elves attack on Red Crossing was not in provocation for Templars attacking one of their towns.

[MisterJB]

Reaverwind wrote...
Indeed, you'd think the elves would want to play up the fact they were kicking Orlesian ass, before other nations got involved. Of course, they'd also have to admit they made a strategic blunder in taking Val Royeaux.

No other nations actually got involved. Yes, usually an Exhalted March involves every Andrastian nation fielding armies but "The World of Thedas" states that only orlesian troops answered the Chantry's call this time. I'm guessing having their capital and heart of their religion sacked really motivated the orlesians.
So, basically, the Dales, at the peak of their power, couldn't even defeat a single human nation that had spent 90 years fighting endless hordes of Darkspawn all over the continent.

[dragondreamer]

Jedi Master of Orion wrote...

Orlais didn't have that reputation back then. It occured after the Third Blight. If the Dales considered sending missionaries as a justifaction for war then they really are at fault.

It wasn't the missionaries, it was the Templars the Chantry sent in after the missionaries were sent away.  Because sending soldiers to occupy a country is a sane reaction to being told the elves don't want to convert to their religion.

[MisterJB]

ianvillan wrote...
After the missionaries were refused they then sent Templars, are we to believe that the Templars they sent to ensure the missionaries got through never drew their swords and attacked the Elves, Who's to say the Elves attack on Red Crossing was not in provocation for Templars attacking one of their towns.

Maybe but since the purpose of the Chantry is conversion; which requires their subject to have a pulse; while the purpose of the elves is "avoid or kill the plaguebearer humans", I'm going to say that whatever the Chantry did can't compare to what the elves did while they had the upper hand.

Plus, orlesian citizens are, in no way, affiliated with the Chantry or its Templars and are thus not an acceptable military target.

[BlueMagitek]

The implication was that the missionaries were being violently mistreated/thrown out. ~_^