248 réponses à ce sujet

[efd731]

Yeah, I just don't see celene as a good choice in so far as a military ally. She had other positive traits, but at the end of the day, if I have an army of orlesians at my back, I want Gaspard at their head. With sneaky eluvian using elven strike teams to support IF* briala doesn't keep acting like an idiot.

[wcholcombe]

Thats fine.  Gaspard is perfectly capable of leading the army as grand duke without being emperor.

[wcholcombe]

 

 

 

Yeah Lady Mantillon who was grooming her for the throne decided that she was ready and took out the only obstacle remaining for Celene, Emperor Florian. Don't see how that makes Celene more qualified to rule, as the throne was more or less handed to her on a silver platter.

 

Not to say she didn't turn out to be a pretty good empress, but she certainly wouldn't have gotten anywhere if not for Lady Mantillon and her training.

 

Really?  Lady Mantilon was also grooming Gaspard.  No one even considered Celene to be have any potential to take over for Florian. Everyone, including Gaspard expected him to become Emperor.  Until Celene outmanuvered him in the game and siezed the throne.  Gaspard himself admits that politically Celene is his superior and he stands no chance against her in the game.

 

I didn't see Gaspard killing elves and keeping the status quo while also having sex with one

Oh you mean when he forced Celene's hand by race baiting and demigouging about Celene making the elves equals to humans to the other nobles of Orlais?  Celene was going to execute the noble responsible and give the elves the justice they wanted and deserved.

[MisterJB]

I don't think we should automatically assume that Celene's position won't have radically changed by DAI.

It's is entirely possible (likely even) that Celene only cared about the elves so long as it made Briala happy.

[ladyofpayne]

 

 

Gaspard himself admits that politically Celene is his superior and he stands no chance against her in the game.

He say it only to manupulate her. He overstepped her in book many times.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

I don't think so. I think knowing Briala at all has changed Celene's perspective. She did tell her that the elves wouldn't suffer if Briala was done with her and she told her that she still loved her. Maybe she doesn't have the same sort of personal stake in their well being like she did when they were lovers but that doesn't mean she won't care at all.

[wcholcombe]

I don't think we should automatically assume that Celene's position won't have radically changed by DAI.

It's is entirely possible (likely even) that Celene only cared about the elves so long as it made Briala happy.

At the end of the book in the winter palace she is still thinking about how to make life better for the elves.

[wcholcombe]

He say it only to manupulate her. He overstepped her in book many times.

He outmanuvered her militarily, not politically. He drew her out and ambushed her.  He didn't defeat her in the political arena.

[Aimi]

Well, to be honest, given that the war on two fronts consumed Germany's war efforts and in the end they ended up defeated, it was still a stupid idea. In Thedosian terms, it would be like Orlais forcing Ferelden to sign a humilating peace only for Nevarra to crush them on the other front.

Well, for one thing, Germany didn't really have an alternative to a two-front war; it's awfully complicated and some recent books (e.g. The Sleepwalkers) have discussed the issue in excellent detail. And the war wasn't caused by "German leaders wanting to invade Russia to take Russia's stuff" anyway.

For another thing, the German military almost managed to win the war in the West even after the Russian offensives, and even after the military and political leadership idiotically provoked the Americans into joining the war. That Germany did not win isn't down to the invasion of Russia (rather, a series of foolish operational decisions during the MICHAEL and GEORG offensives); in fact, Germany would not have even been in a position to win in the first place had Russia not been defeated. (The specifics of the spring campaign in 1918 are actually pretty interesting; David Zabecki wrote a very good English-language operational history that dissected the reasons for success and failure. It's worth a look.)

Fundamentally, though, the point was not to draw direct comparisons between the First World War and Thedas; any and every comparison breaks down if you get granular enough. It was to point out that past history is not a very good predictor of military success, and especially that old canards like "never invade Russia because you'll always lose" are both bad history and bad grounds for making decisions. The general case is what matters. And in the general case, you need a lot better of a reason than "it hasn't really happened lately" to declare "it'll never work!"

Which is what you agreed with in the next part of your post. So we're cool.

At least in the case of Russia, literally no power had successfully invaded the country since the Poles and Swedes back in the Time of Troubles. That's three hundred years of failure that spanned the entire Romanov dynasty, and with, again, those high-profile failures in 1709 and 1812. You might have plausibly argued that history was on Russia's side in a defensive war in 1915. But with Ferelden, the most recent successful invasion occurred about a century before DA:O, and resulted in an eighty-year occupation of the country that only ended thirty years before DA:O. That argument doesn't have the same sort of monolithic weight as the Russian argument did - and even the Russian argument was wrong.

[Mistic]

Well, for one thing, Germany didn't really have an alternative to a two-front war; it's awfully complicated and some recent books (e.g. The Sleepwalkers) have discussed the issue in excellent detail. And the war wasn't caused by "German leaders wanting to invade Russia to take Russia's stuff" anyway.

 

Well, they did have an alternative, the same as Orlais: no war. If you don't attack, there's no war. And if there's no war, you won't lose.

 

For another thing, the German military almost managed to win the war in the West even after the Russian offensives, and even after the military and political leadership idiotically provoked the Americans into joining the war. That Germany did not win isn't down to the invasion of Russia (rather, a series of foolish operational decisions during the MICHAEL and GEORG offensives); in fact, Germany would not have even been in a position to win in the first place had Russia not been defeated. (The specifics of the spring campaign in 1918 are actually pretty interesting; David Zabecki wrote a very good English-language operational history that dissected the reasons for success and failure. It's worth a look.)

Fundamentally, though, the point was not to draw direct comparisons between the First World War and Thedas; any and every comparison breaks down if you get granular enough. It was to point out that past history is not a very good predictor of military success, and especially that old canards like "never invade Russia because you'll always lose" are both bad history and bad grounds for making decisions. The general case is what matters. And in the general case, you need a lot better of a reason than "it hasn't really happened lately" to declare "it'll never work!"

Which is what you agreed with in the next part of your post. So we're cool.

 

I'm not a fan of the "what if...?" applied to history. "Almost" doesn't mean anything if you lost. Although I love dissecting the causes of success and failure in any setting, I think that wondering about what could have happened had the people in charge taken different actions is a futile exercise. Why? Because you can't take into account what the other side would have done in that new scenario, or unexpected consequences.

 

Still, I also don't believe in historical curses or manifest destinies, so I agree with you on that. Neither Russia is a good example of invincible country, nor Ferelden can be used as one after the last Orlesian occupation. Ok, maybe the Dragon Age can create a new legend for Ferelden, since in these few decades they have managed to kick out the Orlesians and defeat a Blight in one single year. Previous failures may be seen as the Mongol invasion of Russia in the Middle Ages.

 

Nevertheless, your posts always provide a fascinating insight, Eirene. It's always a pleasure to read them.

[wcholcombe]

Well, they did have an alternative, the same as Orlais: no war. If you don't attack, there's no war. And if there's no war, you won't lose.

 

Mutual defense/aggression treaties don't really work that way.  If you have a treaty and declare war and your ally doesn't the treaty isn't really worth all that much.

[Mistic]

Mutual defense/aggression treaties don't really work that way.  If you have a treaty and declare war and your ally doesn't the treaty isn't really worth all that much.

 

Tell that to Italy.

[Dean_the_Young]

Well, they did have an alternative, the same as Orlais: no war. If you don't attack, there's no war. And if there's no war, you won't lose.

 

Hm? By the same logic, if there's no war you can't win either. And if you can win in peace, by the same measure you could lose in peace as well.

 

Then there's also the matter of whether you have a choice of having a war at all, or whether it would just be a choice of the matter. The enemy also gets a choice to attack you, even if you don't attack them.

 

 

Of course, I'm not sure what point you actually think you're aiming for here, since Germany did beat Russia and its reasons for losing to the West were not an inevitable consequence of fighting Russia in the way it did.

[Mister Gusty]

Really?  Lady Mantilon was also grooming Gaspard.  No one even considered Celene to be have any potential to take over for Florian. Everyone, including Gaspard expected him to become Emperor.  Until Celene outmanuvered him in the game and siezed the throne.  Gaspard himself admits that politically Celene is his superior and he stands no chance against her in the game.

 

Well obviously Lady Mantillon saw her potential, but that wasn't my point, it was the fact that just because she became empress at such a young age, doesn't mean she is somehow more qualified to rule, like justina was suggesting. Also the training she received from Lady Mantillon was vital for her to become empress.

 

I also never said that she was inferior to Gaspard in anyway what so ever and even said she is a pretty good empress.I just dislike the fact that everyone instantly paints Gaspard as some kind of evil brutish bully where as Celene is seen as an infallible mastermind who clearly is in the right no matter what.

 

I don't see what you are calling me out on as I have not disputed any of the points you have brought up, all I was pointing out was that Celene didn't just magically appear on the throne at the age of 16 due to her incredible political maneuverings, it was because she was backed by a very powerful person who provide the training that was necessary for her to take the throne, as well as creating the opportunity for her to ascend to the throne by assassinating Florian.    

[aTigerslunch]

I liked that comment, JB made.

Dont invade a country where PC's come from, it will be a lost war.

Ferelden does have a record of winning wars more so than other countries but its probably cause we see more about them than say Rivani and such. Antiva has the crows, dont invade them less want to loose all commanders in one night.

[wcholcombe]

Well obviously Lady Mantillon saw her potential, but that wasn't my point, it was the fact that just because she became empress at such a young age, doesn't mean she is somehow more qualified to rule, like justina was suggesting. Also the training she received from Lady Mantillon was vital for her to become empress.

 

I also never said that she was inferior to Gaspard in anyway what so ever and even said she is a pretty good empress.I just dislike the fact that everyone instantly paints Gaspard as some kind of evil brutish bully where as Celene is seen as an infallible mastermind who clearly is in the right no matter what.

 

I don't see what you are calling me out on as I have not disputed any of the points you have brought up, all I was pointing out was that Celene didn't just magically appear on the throne at the age of 16 due to her incredible political maneuverings, it was because she was backed by a very powerful person who provide the training that was necessary for her to take the throne, as well as creating the opportunity for her to ascend to the throne by assassinating Florian.    

My point was that Mantillion was also backing Gaspard. As shown by the fact that Gaspard had one of the same rings as Mantillion gave to Celene.  Everyone expected Gaspard to claim the throne when Florian died.  People didn't even consider Celene to be a candidate.  She manuevered herself into the position of taking the throne.  The book the Masked Empire says as much.

 

Also, as I have often said Celene and Gaspard are two sides of the same coin.  Celene is the side that favors culture and growth for Orlais. Gaspard is the traditionalist who wants to return Orlais to its imperial expantionist past.  Neither is worse then the other, they are both products of the game, it is just a question of what direction you would like Orlais to go in.

 

Throughout the book and even after Briala leaves her and sends her to the Winter Palace instead of Val Royeux, Celene states a dedication to reforming Orlais and its treatment of elves.

[Mistic]

Hm? By the same logic, if there's no war you can't win either. And if you can win in peace, by the same measure you could lose in peace as well.

 

That's only if you assume that peace is a zero-sum game, and I don't.

 

Then there's also the matter of whether you have a choice of having a war at all, or whether it would just be a choice of the matter. The enemy also gets a choice to attack you, even if you don't attack them.

 

I can understand the need of going to war when you are being attacked by another nation, but you must have good reasons to attack first, and even then you can end up as a bully. In WWI not going to war was possible. There were neutral countries and being an European power with signed alliances didn't stop Italy from turning their backs on Germany and Austria in 1914.

 

Of course, I'm not sure what point you actually think you're aiming for here, since Germany did beat Russia and its reasons for losing to the West were not an inevitable consequence of fighting Russia in the way it did.

 

Everything started when someone said that invading Ferelden would be futile, like invading Russia. Then Eirene pointed out that invading Russia is not as impossible as one may think, and that WWI provided a good example of that. I agreed with that, but not with some "what if...?" reflexions from Eirene.

 

My point was that it doesn't mean a thing if you win in one front when you lose the whole war. And that it would have been better for Germany if they didn't go to war in the first place. Saying that they could have won if they had done something differently is futile, because it didn't happen and because even if it did happen, their enemies could have done different things that woud have led to Germany's defeat too.

 

It was to apply the same case to Orlais: ok, they may be able to conquer Ferelden again, but what happens if the Mage-Templar War razes the country or, worse, a power like Nevarra invades from the other side and crushes their whole empire? Every victory until that point would be for naught. It was criticism against Gaspard's imperialism.

[KaiserShep]

I can't vote for Gaspard. No one puts Teagan in the corner.

[Dean_the_Young]

That's only if you assume that peace is a zero-sum game, and I don't.

 

No assumption needed. Peace can be a positive sum, zero sum, or negative sum game, just like war.

 

 

I can understand the need of going to war when you are being attacked by another nation, but you must have good reasons to attack first, and even then you can end up as a bully. In WWI not going to war was possible. There were neutral countries and being an European power with signed alliances didn't stop Italy from turning their backs on Germany and Austria in 1914.

 

 

 

 

You're using a moral rubric in lieu of a strategic rubric, which is what matters more in the context of whether initiating a war on your own terms makes sense. In the case of WW1, Russia was already mobilizing, and with a stated intent against a direct German ally. Germany not declaring war on Russia and trying to pre-empt the mobilization could easily have seen Russia declaring war on Germany once it was fully mobilized.

 

 

 

Everything started when someone said that invading Ferelden would be futile, like invading Russia. Then Eirene pointed out that invading Russia is not as impossible as one may think, and that WWI provided a good example of that. I agreed with that, but not with some "what if...?" reflexions from Eirene.

 

My point was that it doesn't mean a thing if you win in one front when you lose the whole war. And that it would have been better for Germany if they didn't go to war in the first place. Saying that they could have won if they had done something differently is futile, because it didn't happen and because even if it did happen, their enemies could have done different things that woud have led to Germany's defeat too.

 

It was to apply the same case to Orlais: ok, they may be able to conquer Ferelden again, but what happens if the Mage-Templar War razes the country or, worse, a power like Nevarra invades from the other side and crushes their whole empire? Every victory until that point would be for naught. It was criticism against Gaspard's imperialism.

 

This logic is convoluted and contradictory. You're against Eirene raising a hypotethical based on how Germany was well within the realm of potentially winning, and yet you're raising a hypothetical to dismiss and criticize Gaspard's imperialism. And you're doing it on the basis of a poor historical metaphor in which you've already had to move the goal posts because your intended metaphor fell on its face.

 

I suggest you pick another metaphor and argument. Why not compare Gaspard's expansionism to, say, Chinese expansionism?

[Mistic]

No assumption needed. Peace can be a positive sum, zero sum, or negative sum game, just like war.

 

I assume that war is a zero sum game at best, because it can only end with one side winning over the other, or in a draw. At worst, it's a negative sum game. However, I must admit that I should know more about it apart from the parable of the broken window, so I'm open to new ideas.

 

You're using a moral rubric in lieu of a strategic rubric, which is what matters more in the context of whether initiating a war on your own terms makes sense. In the case of WW1, Russia was already mobilizing, and with a stated intent against a direct German ally. Germany not declaring war on Russia and trying to pre-empt the mobilization could easily have seen Russia declaring war on Germany once it was fully mobilized.

 

This logic is convoluted and contradictory. You're against Eirene raising a hypotethical based on how Germany was well within the realm of potentially winning, and yet you're raising a hypothetical to dismiss and criticize Gaspard's imperialism. And you're doing it on the basis of a poor historical metaphor in which you've already had to move the goal posts because your intended metaphor fell on its face.

 

Yeah, I'm getting lost in semantics. It's ironic, really, since more or less I agree with Eirene. And with you. However, it's not "moving the goal posts" as much as insisting that we all play the same game.

 

1) Let's play hypothetical situations with Germany in WW1 and Gaspard's Orlais!

Germany could have won the war. Good arguments are being made, like the Russian campaign being a success. Yay! Germany has won...! No, not yet. Because if we're using hypothesis, the other side has to accept hypothesis that make Germany lose the war. It's pretty typical while discussing potential situations to accept only those that benefit your position, while disregarding the rest, but that's not fair play, is it?. In Orlais' case, there are good reasons to think Orlais could conquer Ferelden... but also that they couldn't, or that other parties may get involved.

 

2) Let's play reality with Germany in WW1 and Gaspard's Orlais!

In real life, Germany lost. WW1 was a huge disaster for the country. It's an excellent example of why winning in one front doesn't matter if you lose the war. About Orlais, they're in the middle of a civil war, a mage-templar war and now the Breach. Even Gaspard acknowledged the futility of his initial plans now. The worst case scenario of Orlais being incapable of launching an attack has already happened.

 

We have to abide by the same rules. For example, what you have posted about strategic interests in WW1 can only be answered in Game 1, even if it's not my favourite one. Against that hypothesis, I put forward the hypothesis that Germany wouldn't have been attacked, just like what happened to Italy. And we are in a stalemate, because neither of us can prove our hypothesis would be correct, since it never happened.

 

I suggest you pick another metaphor and argument. Why not compare Gaspard's expansionism to, say, Chinese expansionism?

 

Well, that at least has an easy answer: because I know much more about European history than Asian history.

[efd731]

Looks into thread after 3 day absence..... o.O

[Dean_the_Young]

I assume that war is a zero sum game at best, because it can only end with one side winning over the other, or in a draw. At worst, it's a negative sum game. However, I must admit that I should know more about it apart from the parable of the broken window, so I'm open to new ideas.

 

Positive sum, zero sum, and negative sum aren't types of conflicts but paradigms of perspectives about conflicts. They can look at the same thing and see different things, based on their perspective of what is being measured. The archetypical zero-sum philsophy is 'my enemy's gain equals my own loss', but one of the paradigm-breaking prospects is that a rival's gain isn't necessarily equal to your loss: it could be less than your loss, or also your own gain.

 

War is the same way. What to you seems like a draw can actually simply be a mutual loss, or a mutual relative gain. It's the same paradigm shift, but it's quite conceivable (if rare) to have a conflict that ultimately advances both party's interests.

 

As poorly kept as it is, the War of 1812 between the US and Britain/Canada is an example. On the US side, there were three significant motivations: ambitions against Canada are the most remembered by the Canadians, the issue of British impressment of American sailors are the primary focus of American history books, and territorial expansion in the North West (where Britain was supporting native resistance to settler expansion, which is rarely remembered at all). On the British side at the time, the British arguably had three primary policy goals vis-a-vis the US: protect Canada, maintain US trade and prevent US support for Napoleon, and to hinder the expansion of a hostile American power.

 

The War is often remembered as a draw, but from a different perspective you could make a credible argument that both sides got significant parts of the war aims. The US didn't get Canada, the most obvious and relevant campaign goal, but after the war the issue of British support for native americans largely fell away and the issue of impressment also subsided (albeit the Napoleonic Wars were ending as well, so meh). On the British side, the US wasn't hindered in its expansion but Canada was defended and relations went to a status-quo trade relations without any meaningful American support for Napoleon.

 

Ultimately, for both sides, US and British/Canadian relations never hit the sort of impass again, and negotiations were repeated successes for future disputes and produced the longest demilitarized border in the world.
 

 

 

Yeah, I'm getting lost in semantics. It's ironic, really, since more or less I agree with Eirene. And with you. However, it's not "moving the goal posts" as much as insisting that we all play the same game.

 

1) Let's play hypothetical situations with Germany in WW1 and Gaspard's Orlais!

Germany could have won the war. Good arguments are being made, like the Russian campaign being a success. Yay! Germany has won...! No, not yet. Because if we're using hypothesis, the other side has to accept hypothesis that make Germany lose the war. It's pretty typical while discussing potential situations to accept only those that benefit your position, while disregarding the rest, but that's not fair play, is it?. In Orlais' case, there are good reasons to think Orlais could conquer Ferelden... but also that they couldn't, or that other parties may get involved.

 

2) Let's play reality with Germany in WW1 and Gaspard's Orlais!

In real life, Germany lost. WW1 was a huge disaster for the country. It's an excellent example of why winning in one front doesn't matter if you lose the war. About Orlais, they're in the middle of a civil war, a mage-templar war and now the Breach. Even Gaspard acknowledged the futility of his initial plans now. The worst case scenario of Orlais being incapable of launching an attack has already happened.

 

We have to abide by the same rules. For example, what you have posted about strategic interests in WW1 can only be answered in Game 1, even if it's not my favourite one. Against that hypothesis, I put forward the hypothesis that Germany wouldn't have been attacked, just like what happened to Italy. And we are in a stalemate, because neither of us can prove our hypothesis would be correct, since it never happened.

 

 

Why are we moving the measuring sticks in game 1 to include Germany and the Western front as well, rather than the Russian invasion? Why are we even bothering with the German defeat as well, when we have so many other cases of victorious expansionism to look at? Well, besides the obvious that a successful expanionism undercuts your intended comparison of dooming Gaspard to failure.

 

The only relevance of the Russian example was as an overly broad claim (that something can't be done), which was disproven. The situation has nothing else to apply to Ferelden without horribly mangling and marginalizing any historic context for the simple reason that Ferelden is not, and never has been, a good strategic analogy to Russia.

 

 

Well, that at least has an easy answer: because I know much more about European history than Asian history.

 

 

Okay, how about this one:

 

Why don't we compare Gaspard's expansionism to Russian expansionism?

[CronoDragoon]

It will depend on what they do in the game. Who can provide the best support for my objective to close the Fade tears?

 

That is to say, I think the book does a good job balancing them. Neither seems like a heinous choice. I also liked that Weekes seemed to be playing on my expectation of BioWare stories. Early-to-mid story, it seems clear that once again the choice will be between idealism and practicality. Celene, supporter of the elves, dreams of economic prosperity instead of invasion, fair lover to Briala. Gaspard, that dasdardly imperialist! Treating elves as garbage!

 

Or does he? The rest of the book almost flips that on its head, with Celene being portrayed as the ruthless pragmatist, and Gaspard the one constrained by honor and virtue, indifferent about Michel's racial history because his actions had impressed him. This is largely a trick of when to position the portrayal of virtue vs. vice in the story's timeline. I doubt that my view on either would be exactly the same if the book had started with the revelation about Celene and Briala's parents, for example, and ended with Gaspard proclaiming his desire to invade Ferelden with the throne.

 

So what am I left with? With no clear-cut choice, I have to focus on my goal. Who's going to help the Inquisition and provide the best means to the end I desire?

[Mistic]

As poorly kept as it is, the War of 1812 between the US and Britain/Canada is an example. On the US side, there were three significant motivations: ambitions against Canada are the most remembered by the Canadians, the issue of British impressment of American sailors are the primary focus of American history books, and territorial expansion in the North West (where Britain was supporting native resistance to settler expansion, which is rarely remembered at all). On the British side at the time, the British arguably had three primary policy goals vis-a-vis the US: protect Canada, maintain US trade and prevent US support for Napoleon, and to hinder the expansion of a hostile American power.

 

The War is often remembered as a draw, but from a different perspective you could make a credible argument that both sides got significant parts of the war aims. The US didn't get Canada, the most obvious and relevant campaign goal, but after the war the issue of British support for native americans largely fell away and the issue of impressment also subsided (albeit the Napoleonic Wars were ending as well, so meh). On the British side, the US wasn't hindered in its expansion but Canada was defended and relations went to a status-quo trade relations without any meaningful American support for Napoleon.

 

Ultimately, for both sides, US and British/Canadian relations never hit the sort of impass again, and negotiations were repeated successes for future disputes and produced the longest demilitarized border in the world.

Interesting perspective. Truth be told, I have always seen the "draw" conclusion in almost every article I've read about the 1812 war, so this is a fresh point of view for me.

 

Why are we moving the measuring sticks in game 1 to include Germany and the Western front as well, rather than the Russian invasion? Why are we even bothering with the German defeat as well, when we have so many other cases of victorious expansionism to look at? Well, besides the obvious that a successful expanionism undercuts your intended comparison of dooming Gaspard to failure.

 

The only relevance of the Russian example was as an overly broad claim (that something can't be done), which was disproven. The situation has nothing else to apply to Ferelden without horribly mangling and marginalizing any historic context for the simple reason that Ferelden is not, and never has been, a good strategic analogy to Russia.

That is true, I was using the German example because it evidently favoured my position. No irony here, since it's the truth. If instead of WW1 Germany we were talking about the Roman Republic, expansionism wins all the way.
Of course, it's a moot point since Gaspard's plan to anger Ferelden and start a war didn't work in TME and now has better things to think of.

 

 

Okay, how about this one:

 

Why don't we compare Gaspard's expansionism to Russian expansionism?

 

I can play! Which period are you talking about?