42 réponses à ce sujet

[SiN82]

I think there are better revolutionary leaders to work from. Perhaps Nelson Mandela? Though his work relied on black people actually being a majority in apartheid countries... hmmm. Mao was a good revolutionary as long as you didn't ask him to actually run a country.

 

Well i don't think Mao and Mandela are the kind of leader Dalish need. They will have to fight to be free...so they need more a general/chief/stragist/warrior kind of guy

[Wulfram]

They should have a Garibaldi.  At least, he's my favourite revolutionary.  The italian guy, not the Babylon 5 guy.  Or the biscuit.

 

Though I'm not sure if he makes sense without a Cavour and a Victor Emmanuel II.  Though maybe Celene could serve in a similar role - as the authority that he needs to compromise with to achieve freedom for his country.  Or we could go into Dalish/City elf relations.

[Han Shot First]

They should have a Garibaldi.  At least, he's my favourite revolutionary.  The italian guy, not the Babylon 5 guy.  Or the biscuit.

 

 

Good choice.

 

Either him or Spartacus would make a good model for a revolutionary character.

[Talagen]

I was always partial to Robinhood.    

[Master Warder Z_]

I agree with the trope not touching DA, but Che was a spiteful racist bigot who would've happily knifed 99.99% of the people on this forum.

 

Not touching his politics, but i am pointing out he was regarded as a Hero through out the entire world for his cause and efforts.

 

He also was given a rather unique title "The most complete man of the century".

[Master Warder Z_]

Good choice.

 

Either him or Spartacus would make a good model for a revolutionary character.

 

Spartacus would be a good example of what not to do anyway.

[CybAnt1]

OK, apparently, we can't post only images, so here's some text.

 

 

[Aimi]

Well i don't think Mao and Mandela are the kind of leader Dalish need. They will have to fight to be free...so they need more a general/chief/stragist/warrior kind of guy

Mao had to fight. Admittedly, most of the time Mao was in military charge of things, the army ran into various forms of disaster (e.g. Jiang's encirclement campaigns) and more competent soldiers ran the show late in the Civil War when the PLA got really good. But Mao certainly qualified as "general/chief/strategist/warrior".
 

They should have a Garibaldi.  At least, he's my favourite revolutionary.  The italian guy, not the Babylon 5 guy.  Or the biscuit.
 
Though I'm not sure if he makes sense without a Cavour and a Victor Emmanuel II.  Though maybe Celene could serve in a similar role - as the authority that he needs to compromise with to achieve freedom for his country.  Or we could go into Dalish/City elf relations.

No Garibaldi without Cavour, no Cavour without Napoleon III.

[efd731]

Not touching his politics, but i am pointing out he was regarded as a Hero through out the entire world for his cause and efforts.

He also was given a rather unique title "The most complete man of the century".

Not the whole world, because the whole world didn't have awareness of him. And not regarded as a hero always, just(apparently) by white college students with enough time on their hands to pick a rebel of the month, but too little interest to actually learn about the guy in question.

[Han Shot First]

Spartacus would be a good example of what not to do anyway.

 

Spartacus was very successful initially, and won several battles against the Romans. In fact at one point the road was clear and his army could have escaped to the north and out of Italy. For reasons that are now lost to history, instead of continuing north the army turned south and ultimately to its doom. Perhaps they got drunk on early success and plunder and got overconfident.

 

In any case we have to be careful in attributing that failure to Spartacus, because he didn't have complete command over his army in the same way that a Roman commander would. He had been voted into a leadership role by the army and the army may have functioned somewhat democratically. 

[Aimi]

Spartacus was very successful initially, and won several battles against the Romans. In fact at one point the road was clear and his army could have escaped to the north and out of Italy. For reasons that are now lost to history, instead of continuing north the army turned south and ultimately to its doom. Perhaps they got drunk on early success and plunder and got overconfident.

Or perhaps they simply didn't know the way. We're talking about the era before widely-available accurate maps. Even the average citizen of Rome probably wouldn't be able to find his way out of Italy without a considerable amount of help. Spartacus was leading a collection of slaves, with a proportionately lower propensity for adequate navigation.

We also don't really know what the insurrectionists' objectives were in the Third Servile War. Perhaps they were trying to escape Rome and flee to Gaul or Pannonia or wherever. Or perhaps they were intent on bringing down the Republic. The period historians differ on that point.

And finally, there's not a lot of evidence that Spartacus actually was a revolutionary in any meaningful sense. No source records him as attempting to end the institution of slavery. Theoretically, revolutionaries are fighting for some idealized future state, even if they don't know the mechanics of implementing it, but there's no particular reason to ascribe such a motive to Spartacus or the others in the absence of evidence.

[Aimi]

When I first saw ads for Hawke, I thought he'd be the Che for mages. Turns out he was kind of posh.

Hey, so was Che.

[giveamanafish...]

Well there is also this. Jesus as a revolutionary:

 

the Jesus of history, the Jesus before Christianity: the politically conscious Jewish revolutionary who, two thousand years ago, walked across the Galilean countryside, gathering followers for a messianic movement with the goal of establishing the Kingdom of God but whose mission failed when, after a provocative entry into Jerusalem and a brazen attack on the Temple, he was arrested and executed by Rome for the crime of sedition. It is also about how, in the aftermath of Jesus' failure to establish God's reign on earth, his followers reinterpreted not only Jesus' mission and identity, but also the very nature and definition of the Jewish messiah.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/ta...-revolutionary/

 

I'm not at all religious. I just want to see Bioware stir the pot. I suppose we already have Andraste though.

[Aimi]

And although Andraste doesn't have a clear analog in late-Roman history, Maferath's got a lot of the legend of Attila the Hun in him: the leader of a terrifying 'barbarian' horde that sweeps all before it until reaching the gates of the capital and being turned back by negotiation.

I say 'the legend' because that's not necessarily an accurate depiction of Attila historically, but you get the idea.

[Adaar the Unbound]

I think this is a good idea, but I think they would need more than 1 leader.