Master Warder Z wrote...
Silfren wrote...
Master Warder Z wrote...
Silfren wrote...
Master Warder Z wrote...
How do you know the siege began? Unless if they were holding the Chantry Personal hostage it would make sense to boot them out before Negoiations began given that when you are in an attic and you have people below capable of getting you it tends to end poorly.
We can safely assume that given it lasted for near on a month that the mages did indeed kick every one else out or if they did not made them incapable of breaching the door to their location.
And considering the Divine's reaction it seems all that was standing between that place and being razed was it being a holy site.
We will simply have to agree to disagree upon our interpretations of events i suppose.
You need to read that codex again, because you have it completely wrong. There WAS. NO. siege. You're flat out wrong on this.
I have read it priorly and even reread it today for this very debate; I assure you my understanding of it is current.
Just not very accurate. NOTHING in that codex suggests that the mages had besieged the place or were acting violent in any way. The tone, and the events as described, all point toward a peaceful mage protest and an irrational Divine.
Just from that perspective; Again Codexes are from an Invidual's perspective and Petrine's perspective is more subject to bias then most. Considering that this came from a circle approved tome of history the scholar is commenting on further suggest historical bias and considering the seperation of historical fact from historical fiction i do believe altering perspectives are completely warrented in the situation.
Again Bioware has stated repeatedly that the Codexes due to the inviduality of their author are not to be taken as "God Canon" Or in some cases are completely seperate from what actually occured.
Point being if you disagree with me that is your right but labeling my perspective wrong merely for disagreeing with it is something i do not support.
I'm well aware of the bias thing with the Codices. What I will ALSO note is that Sister Petrine is an agent OF the Chantry, and when you look at her writings, you see several things that apply here: one, that there is a clear attempt at objectivity in her portrayal of various events, but even so you can see a pro-Chantry bias. Given that she's a Chantry sympathizer and yet is willing to criticize the Divine of the Chantry of that period, that counts for something.
I'm sorry, Circle approved tome of history? Are you seriously suggesting that the Circle, and not the Chantry, controls what writings make it into the Circle? LMAO. The bias here works in support of the Chantry, NOT the Circle!
If this had been a violent event, or the mages had had some kind of serious leverage with which to blackmail the Chantry, you can be sure that that would have been mentioned in the story. It's patently absurd to think that such a thing would not have been mentioned. True, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in this particular case, the lack of a mention of any violence or implied violence CAN and WOULD be taken by any credible scholar as an indication that no such thing had been present in the dispute. The fact that the Divine herself wanted to declare an Exalted March but her templars discouraged it also points to this. It doesn't look at all like the only thing preventing one was the "holiness" of the location--the Divine was the one ordering it, and her templars were against it. That scenario alone should tell you that it's much more likely that there simply was no justifiable cause for a March. It's just plain stupid to think that the Divine would want to raze a church to the ground but the templars would be against it on account of it being a holy site. I mean, do you seriously think that the Templars would object to razing the place OVER THE DIVINE'S OWN WISHES if the mages had used or threatened *violence*?
Yep, I'm quite comfortable in saying your interpretation is so ridiculously off-base from anything said in the codex that it's easily dismissed as wrong.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
