280 réponses à ce sujet

[SusanStoHelit]

I've seen no evidence ingame that Cailan made Anora Queen Regnant (co-ruler). Now, I could simply have missed it - and I certainly haven't read every thread in the forum and made note of everything every writer has said.

Based on what is available to me, I have assumed that Anora was Queen Consort only. And thus had no right to rule. In fact, I vaguely recall someone mentioning something like that - maybe that Templar at Lothering, Ser Bryant? On this I am not sure though. But I'm pretty sure that some person or persons mentioned ingame that Anora has no right to the throne.

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 24 janvier 2010 - 01:51 .

[RangerSG]

The Gay Warden wrote...

Still, nobody know's anything for sure. There's always the POSSIBILTY Orlais could have betrayed Ferelden. Given the evidence, is it likely? No. Is it possible? Of course.

What's the worse possibility:

Orlais and Fereldan are united in a personal union of the Orlesian Empress and King Cailan. (Cailan's plan if we take everything in RtO as gospel and not political manuevering). But the Blight is stopped immediately by a combined effort of Orlesian and Fereldan forces.

Or...

The Grey Wardens are destroyed, Ferelden is a blight-stricken wasteland. The Orlesians don't join the battle until the Blight reaches THEIR borders and thus much of Orlais would be laid waste as well. (the KNOWN result of Loghain's plan).

[SusanStoHelit]

RangerSG wrote...

What's the worse possibility:

Orlais and Fereldan are united in a personal union of the Orlesian Empress and King Cailan. (Cailan's plan if we take everything in RtO as gospel and not political manuevering). But the Blight is stopped immediately by a combined effort of Orlesian and Fereldan forces.

Or...

The Grey Wardens are destroyed, Ferelden is a blight-stricken wasteland. The Orlesians don't join the battle until the Blight reaches THEIR borders and thus much of Orlais would be laid waste as well. (the KNOWN result of Loghain's plan).

Yes, exactly. This is neither Orlesian invasion nor occupation. It is a unified Empire. Lots of nations were initially separate countries that eventually united with a dynastic marriage - even if people at the time didn't like it.

But even if it were those things (invasion or whatever), Ferelden survives, and so do its citizens. Loghain cares more about Ferelden's independence than its survival. Or the survival of its people. And he specifically makes that clear very early on.

You can fight an invasion and/or occupation. You can rebel against domination. You can't revolt when you're dead and so is everyone else, consumed by the blight or dragged off to be fed to the darkspawn or turned into a broodmother.

[Edited for formatting.]

Modifié par SusanStoHelit, 24 janvier 2010 - 02:50 .

[zchen]

My view has always been that Calian, while naiive, could easily learn and improve as a ruler.



How can anyone argue that Loghain's retreat at Ostager, scheming with blood mages,, poisoning Arl Eamon, and engaging in slave trade was to the benefit of Ferelden or anyone? He was a hero once, but he made horrible decisions because of his lingering hatred of Orlais.



Winning at Ostager put the humans in a much better position, the fighting would've have been restricted to the edge of the kingdom. Redcliffe forces would have been in reserve without the poisoning of Arl Eamon. The Ferelden warden forces would be largely intact and could easily call for reinforcements.



Retreating only served to let the Darkspawn ravage much of the Ferelden country side and eventualy leveling half of Denerim. If not for the actions of the warden, Ferelden would have simply been razed to the ground by the Darkspawn while Loghain engaged in his petty battles with the bannorn.

[DariusKalera]

I'm sure Cailan was a nice guy, but I can not say that he was a good king. There are several things that are keeping me from saying that he was.



1: He apparently had a thing going with the Empress and was kicking his wife to the curb.



2: Glory hound. He would still be alive if he had not been because he would not have been on the front lines. He and Loghain both made mistakes at Ostagar with Cailan's, besides trusting Loghain, was him thinking "The fewer men we have, the more glory we get when we win." Thats a very bad attitude for a king to have.



3: He was out of touch with the people he was supposed to be ruling. It has been 30 years since the end of the Orlesian occupation and he was going to try to bring the countries back together and that would have caused another civil war. The memories of the atrocities committed by the Orlesians were still pretty fresh in the minds of the Fereldan citizens. Loghain would have rebelled, and he would have had a large percentage of the population with him.



For something like that to have worked, the Orlesians would once again have to be brutal to squish any uprisings and to keep on squishing them until both countries became thoroughly meshed culture wise.

[The Gay Warden]

I agree. Cailan (I spelled it right this time) was a horrible king.

Modifié par The Gay Warden, 24 janvier 2010 - 04:17 .

[SusanStoHelit]

The Gay Warden wrote...

I agree. Cailan (I spelled it right this time) was a horrible king.

Cool. Now edit the title of this thread to reflect that.

Sorry, but I just couldn't resist.

[Slayer299]

thegreateski wrote...

Well it's a good thing that Queen Anora was the one actually controlling the kingdom isn't it?

Anora was actually controlling something while *daddy* ran Ferelden into the ground? 

[The Gay Warden]

There.

[Treason1]

What's that quote? "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." I can sympathize and understand Logain's reasoning. It's still damning. I cut his throat, every time, at the Landsmeet.

[Carodej]

I don't think Cailan made a horrible king. I'd say more of a mediocre king. He wasn't the brightest, but still smart enough to have someone better suited (Anora) actually handle the day to day running of the kingdom. He was great at inspiring troops, even if he wasn't any great strategist. He cared for his people, but he was also a glory hound. He had fairly high morals (by that I mean for someone in a position of such power), but foolish to think he could ever had gotten the better of the deal in anything relating to Celene.



Our world history has had plenty of kings that were better and plenty that were worse. While he seemed too foolish to ever be a great king, I sometimes wonder what would have happened if he had survived Ostagar. If a close call might have knocked some more sense into him and helped him to grow up.

[RangerSG]

DariusKalera wrote...

I'm sure Cailan was a nice guy, but I can not say that he was a good king. There are several things that are keeping me from saying that he was.

1: He apparently had a thing going with the Empress and was kicking his wife to the curb.

2: Glory hound. He would still be alive if he had not been because he would not have been on the front lines. He and Loghain both made mistakes at Ostagar with Cailan's, besides trusting Loghain, was him thinking "The fewer men we have, the more glory we get when we win." Thats a very bad attitude for a king to have.

3: He was out of touch with the people he was supposed to be ruling. It has been 30 years since the end of the Orlesian occupation and he was going to try to bring the countries back together and that would have caused another civil war. The memories of the atrocities committed by the Orlesians were still pretty fresh in the minds of the Fereldan citizens. Loghain would have rebelled, and he would have had a large percentage of the population with him.

For something like that to have worked, the Orlesians would once again have to be brutal to squish any uprisings and to keep on squishing them until both countries became thoroughly meshed culture wise.

Points 1 and 2 are valid. Though I don't think you can say Cailan was taking a Henry V from Agincourt queue. Cailan wanted more men. He wanted the Orlesian army. But as much as he thought at all...I think what he believed was there was no way Loghain would 'not' charge if Cailan was with the Wardens...whereas Cailan could definitely see Loghain writing off the Wardens as just some more casualties. Loghain, however remembered his promise to Maric, and kept it at the worst time for Cailan.

3) I totally disagree. If you read the lore, you see that Cailan had a high degree of personal popularity. What Anora apparently was to foreign rulers, Cailan was to the common folk. In fact, the only people he had a serious problem ruling was Loghain and his lackey, Arl Howe (whom Loghain obviously could not even rule). So the issue isn't Cailan was "out of touch" with his people. If anyone was "out of touch," it was Loghain. Cailan's problem was he did not realize how far Loghain's paranoia would actually go.

[The Gay Warden]

Glad to see this debate is still going!

[DariusKalera]

RangerSG wrote...

DariusKalera wrote...

I'm sure Cailan was a nice guy, but I can not say that he was a good king. There are several things that are keeping me from saying that he was.

1: He apparently had a thing going with the Empress and was kicking his wife to the curb.

2: Glory hound. He would still be alive if he had not been because he would not have been on the front lines. He and Loghain both made mistakes at Ostagar with Cailan's, besides trusting Loghain, was him thinking "The fewer men we have, the more glory we get when we win." Thats a very bad attitude for a king to have.

3: He was out of touch with the people he was supposed to be ruling. It has been 30 years since the end of the Orlesian occupation and he was going to try to bring the countries back together and that would have caused another civil war. The memories of the atrocities committed by the Orlesians were still pretty fresh in the minds of the Fereldan citizens. Loghain would have rebelled, and he would have had a large percentage of the population with him.

For something like that to have worked, the Orlesians would once again have to be brutal to squish any uprisings and to keep on squishing them until both countries became thoroughly meshed culture wise.

Points 1 and 2 are valid. Though I don't think you can say Cailan was taking a Henry V from Agincourt queue. Cailan wanted more men. He wanted the Orlesian army. But as much as he thought at all...I think what he believed was there was no way Loghain would 'not' charge if Cailan was with the Wardens...whereas Cailan could definitely see Loghain writing off the Wardens as just some more casualties. Loghain, however remembered his promise to Maric, and kept it at the worst time for Cailan.

3) I totally disagree. If you read the lore, you see that Cailan had a high degree of personal popularity. What Anora apparently was to foreign rulers, Cailan was to the common folk. In fact, the only people he had a serious problem ruling was Loghain and his lackey, Arl Howe (whom Loghain obviously could not even rule). So the issue isn't Cailan was "out of touch" with his people. If anyone was "out of touch," it was Loghain. Cailan's problem was he did not realize how far Loghain's paranoia would actually go.

He wanted more men, then again, he didn't.  He wanted Orlesians only because that would have put him on good standing with the Empress, but then, he did not want to wait for Arl Eamon to show up with his. 

Simply because he is popular with the people does not mean that he is in touch with them or knows how they will react in a given situation.  Cailan was the figure head to his and Anora's rule.  He was the son of Maric so he went out to do all the meet and greets and wave a little bit so that his face could be seen.  But all the executive decisions were being made by Anora because Cailan either did not want, or not know how, to deal with the administrative side of things. 

They actually evened each other out quite a bit and apparrently made a good team.  Though if Cailan could not see that then that is another mark against him.

Having chevaliers march across Fereldan, for whatever reason, would have been akin to British Regulars marching across the U.S. 30 years after the revolution.   Even if they were there to help, bad feelings would have existed on both sides and things would not have been pretty.   The same feelings would have existed between the people of Fereldan and the Orlesians.

If Cailan did not realize that these feelings would have existed, then he is indeed out of touch with the people.

Modifié par DariusKalera, 24 janvier 2010 - 07:29 .

[draxynnus]

Xandurpein wrote...

draxynnus wrote...

On the other hand, look at the United Kingdom. Elizabeth pulled a shrewd move there (partially assisted by the opportunity afforded by genetics) by bringing both countries together largely as equals by making the kings of England and Scotland the same person, a union that's survived pretty much everything since and was probably pretty much unthinkable before she pulled it off.

Of course, this requires having the same person be the immediate heir to both thrones - the problem in the case of the Hundred Years Wars was that the claim to the throne by the English monarchy was fairly weak and indirect, and only really became an issue because the other claimants to the throne were fairly weak. It probably also didin't help that the British throne inherited claims to the former Norman lands in France from William the Conqueror (although, technically, these claims were bundled with an expectation of fealty to the French crown).

Umm... The England/Scotland example just proves my point. England conquered Scotland in war and forced English rule on Scotland. Just as an Orlesia might use a marriage as pretext for conquering Fereldan.

Seperate points in history. England conquered Scotland as was pushed out again at around the time of the Hundred Years War. The United Kingdom was formed later, and not by conquest, but by the head of state of each country happening to be the same person. While England was the senior partner (the capital is London, after all) the unification was fairly equitable - there wasn't any mass confiscations of property from the Scottish, for instance. This was possibly helped by the fact that James was the king of the weaker country (Scotland) before becoming king of the stronger (England) - the situation would have meant that James had already made a commitment to the Scottish, but couldn't risk angering the English either (although his son didn't do so well in that respect).

The result of a marriage between a King of Ferelden and an Empress of Orlais would probably depend on just how the shared heir was raised - the Ferelden side would want to make sure that the heir had at least as much of a commitment to Ferelden as to Orlais.

earl of the north wrote...

Strange that, because it would mean Howe expected King Calian not to act against him after he killed one of the King's main allies and that Loghain planned to poison Arl Eamon himself (since both happened just be Ostagar)......which I'd say was more Howe's style.

Howe was basically gambling on being able to take out all the witnesses, and then he'd be able to "say what he likes" to the king afterwards about what really happened. Basically, he must have had some cover planned that was believable.

Xandurpein wrote...

A King who likes going to War is a bad King in my book, no matter what. War is bad and anyone who wants war is a bad leader. If there had been no Darkspawn horde, do you think he would have been content to sit at home and drill? He would have gone to war with someone else instead. Maybe invaded Orlesia or something.

I doubt it, actually. Part of his enthusiasm was that the darkspawn was an enemy that he'd be a hero to everyone for fighting. Leaders who attack other nations, however, are a dime a dozen. He may have been more likely to react to provocation with military force, but he never struck me as the kind to take a military fascination to the point of randomly attacking someone - either personally or as a national leader.

[Gamer-erBIO]

Loghain would make a horrible king.

[earl of the north]

Loghain did make a horrible king.

[GmanFresh]

if logain were kin he would go to war with the orlais every 5 min

[Maria13]

Cailan may have started out as a glory hound but has began to realise how hemmed in he is by Logain and
his daughter, a political puppet in their hands. Perhaps, he has also held off from having an heir for that reason too (Francis Bacon: "He that has both wife and children giveth hostages to fortune"?). So, strictly under wraps, he's seeking new allies to break free: the Orlesian empress and the Grey Wardens while officially up front he's keeping up the glory hound/callow youth appearance.

He removes Alistair from the templers where he would eventually become nothing but a drug-addled plaything of the Chantry and immediately ensures that Duncan conscripts him into the GWs where he will be much more useful.  Both in terms of strengthening the bond with the GWs "See, I give you my brother..." and in terms of keeping Alistair safe while there is no heir.  The GWs are a transnational organisation, if there was civil war in Ferelden Duncan cd protect Alistair or Alistair seek refuge abroad with those contacts.   Also in strategic terms, Alistair could be tapped as source of information on the Wardens or a an ally perhaps a future head of the wardens.

In support of this, of the little we see of it, Cailan's decision making appears to be extremely prudent: He does not
see the darkspawn as a blight because he has no evidence for it, he does not take Duncan at his word, nevertheless he leaves the door open on that possibility; he does not provide immediate revenge for the human noble ("after we've dealt with the darkspawn" which may be code for: "I'll have to review how that fits into my strategy"). Before Ostagar he sends Alistair to the tower, protect my blood/or my future investment.

But the strategy is risky and he knows he is up against a master in Logain so he is playing everything extremely
cautiously. I think to some extent, Duncan is aware of what is going on, but, apart from the fact that he likes Cailan, he is happy to play along for the time being because it is good for the GWs and also for tackling this blight. Duncan too is astute and may well be wise to Cailan's game, we see him rebuking Alistair for getting people's backs up unnecessarily in camp [this is undiplomatic] and ordering him to the tower.

I do not think that either he not Duncan suspected that eventually Logain would resort to straight-forward treason.

Modifié par Maria13, 24 janvier 2010 - 10:35 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

earl of the north wrote...

Loghain did make a horrible king.

That peasant was never truly king, however much his toadies called him so.

Modifié par Emperor Iaius I, 24 janvier 2010 - 10:37 .

[earl of the north]

Emperor Iaius I wrote...

earl of the north wrote...

Loghain did make a horrible king.

That peasant was never truly king, however much his toadies called him so.

The Regent is a king in all but name and he was terrible once he tried to do the job himself. So we have no need to debate whether Loghain would have been a good or bad king.

Modifié par earl of the north, 24 janvier 2010 - 10:42 .

[Emperor Iaius I]

Yes, the messenger was the toady to which I referred.



I do agree that he made a poor regent, but that's different from being a poor king. He's been shown as a lousy ruler, but he never had--nor should he have--the chance to occupy the inspirational role a king might have.

[Vicious]

Cailan was living in the shadow of his old man who died before his time in a freakin shipwreck [what the hell was he doing sailing.]

Based of what we know, Anora was pretty much running the show.

On the side he was getting gigity with Empress Celene.


The problem with Cailan was that he was obviously not King material - he did what UNHARDENED ALISTAIR does. He ran around making nice with everybody and let someone else [anora] run the show.

Arl Eamon was his puppeteer. At Arl Eamon's urging Cailan looked elsewhere for heirs from someone besides Anora. [who is older than he was] if there was a child of Anora and Cailan, Eamon [whom was always at odds with Loghain] would probably be much more inclined to listen to a big war hero grandfather than not so big warhero grand uncle, and Eamon and his family's future power would be on the downhill slope.


And so Cailan found Celene. A, by all accounts, genius empress. The idea that Cailan could outfox Celene is laughable, she was foiling assassinations while he was still in the crib. Her interest is obvious: If she marries Cailan then Ferelden becomes part of Orlais, and she massively expands Orlais' prestige, power, and land in one fell swoop, with minimal loss of life.


And just like that all of those who died to free Ferelden from Orlais barely a generation ago [realize that nearly all of the Banns, Arls, and Teryns of Ferelden are veterans of the war against Orlais.] died for nothing, basically.

The VAST cultural disconnect between Ferelden and Orlais would spell civil war all over again, [as one example Chevaliers can do ANYTHING they want, just speak to the Orlesian woman in the Marketplace for a nice story. Few Fereldens would stand for them, and they are the Orlesian basis of Knighthood.] and their own King, Cailan fighting in Celene's name with the armies of Orlais to crush them.


It's easy to see Loghian's point of view. Cailan WAS a traitor. He spit in the face of everything Loghain lost and sacrificed. All of it, for nothing. Ferelden would be plunged into another civil war, it's own King leading the Orlesian Armies as well as the Nobles who would stand with him [like Arl Eamon] and Ferelden would most certainly lose, divided as it would be.


And that would be it. Ferelden gone, a province of Orlais, now more powerful and mighty than ever. Even given the Blight it was needless. Cailan would have had zero power, besides being called 'Emperor' and his children heirs to a massive kingdom.

If Anora ran the country and he didn't, then Celene [who is most likely far smarter than Anora] was playing Cailan like a fiddle. The idea he would have ANY power is laughable at best.

And that was it - imagined Power to himself, at the expense of his entire country, for no other reason than his own ego and one-upping his old man.


Loghain was wrong about his actions. Very wrong.

And Cailan was a horrible, horrible King. Thank the Maker he died bravely in battle than getting knocked off by his own countrymen, or better yet, some pretty Orlesian Bard.


If you have an effective rebuttal i'd love to hear it. also apologies for grammar errors and repeating myself, english isnt so great.

Modifié par Vicious, 24 janvier 2010 - 11:10 .

[MishenNikara]

If Cailan managed some actual peace and stability before the blight, then he couldn't have been a completely terrible king, glory hog and a kid in all but age aside. Hell as long as he didn't mention the word "Orlesian" or "Orlais" Loghain may not have had gone crazy and done what he did. Stolen Throne pretty much explains why Orlais might just possibly be a hot-button topic for Loghain (and all of you should have bought it and read it by now!). But Cailan did what he did, and pressed Loghain's crazy button, and managed to show that even if Cailan was a bad king that he was no Loghain >.>