Ce sujet est fermé
As I have stated multiple times, the point is that violence has succeeded.
Once, compared to hundreds of times that it didn't. And besides, the American Revolution was not an uprising form the bottom, but a secession of a colony from its home country. It is in no way whatsoever applicable to the Elves of Thedas.
And we have said that it is a poor example to use in this situation for a variety of factors
Again, I was responding to the sentiment, not citing it as a perfect parallel.
Unless you've got developer quotes that support your assertions about the Inquisition breaking free of the Chantry due to the Chantry being in disarray, you aren't being very convincing. I would agree that Cassandra is following Justinia's wish in creating the Inquisition, and that she takes the Inquisition off the ranch to prevent the disarray in the Chantry Leadership from focusing the Inquisition on the wrong goals, but none of that even remotely suggests that the Chantry itself is in any danger of losing their place in Thedas.
Mark Darrah and Mike Laidlaw have both said that the Inquisition is "in opposition to the Chantry", with Laidlaw adding that the Inquisitor isn't a "puppet of the church". David Gaider said that the Inquisitor doesn't work for the Chantry. Cameron Lee was the one who specified that Cassandra broke the Inquisition away from the Chantry after the cataclysm that kills the leadership of the Chantry and the mages (who attended the peace meeting).
Anora made an attempt that was convenient, and abandoned it when it stopped being so. That's not a quality you want to look for in an ally. And Alistair, regardless of what he thought he was doing, still failed. The Hinterlands are Redcliffe territory now, and "Arl Teagan" doesn't sound like a Dalish name to me. Even with the theoretical elven advisor, Alistair was powerless to circumvent the will of his people. Good intentions and a cup of coffee are worth exactly a cup of coffee when you don't follow through.
Queen Anora is also willing to give the Hinterlands to the Dalish in respect to the sacrifice made by the elven Hero of Ferelden who came from the Sabrae Clan, and that wasn't "convenient" for her; she has progressive ideas. Also, I'm talking about a treaty between Ferelden and an autonomous kingdom of the Dales, not about the developers (possibly) handwaving the Dalish Boon; I have a fairly good idea that more than a few Fereldens wouldn't want to see Orlais wield the same level of power that it once had. We also know that the army will follow the ruler's command, as the Crown can provide support to the dwarves in the Deep Roads who are trying to reclaim lost thaigs.
What, exactly, makes you believe that things would go any differently in elf/human relations if those 'knife-ears tried rising above their station' right there on the other side of the border? What makes you think the people of Ferelden would tolerate that any more than they did the elves setting up shop in Blightlands? Blightlands. The humans of Ferelden hate elves so much that even letting them settle on poisoned ground was unacceptable. And if the people of Ferelden did take issue with it, what is the monarchy going to do? Send the army after their own people on behalf of some 'knife ears'? Yeah, no.
If the Ferelden army is willing to tolerate going into the Deep Roads to fight darkspawn, I think they would be willing to tolerate fighting Orlesians.
An independent dales would be a rash on the Northern Ferelden border, and eventually it would get scratched. Probably with the help of the other human nation in the area, because when it comes to elves, humans are pretty much united on the proper course of action.
The Dales and Ferelden are actually separated by the Frostback Mountains, and (it seems) the land mass that would connect the two through the Frostback Mountains leads to the entrance to Orzammar.
All I'm suggesting is that if you think Ferelden is going to protect a nation of elves from Orlais, you are gravely mistaken.
I think a treaty would help matters, and I'm not as pessimistic about it as you are, especially as Orlais is dealing with a civil war and the crisis of the Breach (that may substantially weaken it in the same way that the civil war and the Blight weakened Ferelden). That said, I don't disagree that the Inquisitor might need to take further steps to nullify the threat that Orlais can pose to Ferelden and the Dales.
You understand WHY the American Revolution even succeeded?
Because the French King stupidly supported America, creating massive debt for his own nation, leading to another revolution...
If the French didn't step in, the patriots would have been crushed.
The Deep Elves will conquer all... as long as no one opposes them!
They will be opposed by all.
Unlike the retarded humans, dwarves are a-ok with their neighbours minding their own business. In fact, they prefer it that way. Have they actually EVER asked for help fighting the darkspawn (grey wardens don't count)?
As far as I can see, the only grievance you seem to have with the elves that they have kept to themselves. Oh those evil, evil bastards! Not talking to us and not buying our crap products? We must make war at once! Not helping with the blight? I agree, it was a missed opportunity. They should have helped the human nations like they themselves did to eachother: kicking the darkspawn out and conquering the land for themselves.
As I have stated multiple times, the point is that violence has succeeded.
And that is an icnredibly narrow and stupid way to look at it. Violence did not succeed the American Revolution. CIRCUMSTANCES did. The English could if the circumstances were right for them have completely eradicated the American colonies and repopulated them with new colonists. However political pressure in Europe prevented the English from responding with enough reinforcements to end the revolution.
As I have stated multiple times, the point is that violence has succeeded.
Because the cause behind the violence was recognized as legitimate by a third party.
...Not going to happen here.
It isn't comparable at all.
Because the French King stupidly supported America, creating massive debt for his own nation, leading to another revolution...
If the French didn't step in, the patriots would have been crushed.
maybe, but the English were starting to lose ground well before the French actually got around to intervening. The biggest victory of the war was fought well before the French even sent supplies.
Even without the French aid its unlikely the English could afford to keep throwing soldiers at it, along with the war's unpopularity back home
Again, I was responding to the sentiment, not citing it as a perfect parallel.
its not even an imperfect parallel, the two are completely different scenarios
the sentiment would have to be "violent revolutions can work under extenuating circumstances"
*snip*.
Come now, there's no need to call each other names. It's disrespectful and it detracts from the conversation.
its not even an imperfect parallel, the two are completely different scenarios
the sentiment would have to be "violent revolutions can work under extenuating circumstances"
To me, the sentiment read as "violence only leads to hate/more violence". If I misinterpreted it, fine. As it stands, the American Revolution is an example of violence also leading to a desired outcome.
To me, the sentiment read as "violence only leads to hate/more violence". If I misinterpreted it, fine. As it stands, the American Revolution is an example of violence also leading to a desired outcome.
yes, under extenuating circumstances such as British public opinion, military pressure from France, etc... And the war led directly to another war with England and almost one with France.
It took until the late 19th century for relations between the two to get amiable
so the war did lead to more war, violence, distrust, and hate
To me, the sentiment read as "violence only leads to hate/more violence". If I misinterpreted it, fine. As it stands, the American Revolution is an example of violence also leading to a desired outcome.
The point was that violence in the case of the Elves' situation would lead only to more violence.
yes, under extenuating circumstances such as British public opinion, military pressure from France, etc... And the war led directly to another war with England and almost one with France.
It took until the late 19th century for relations between the two to get amiable
so the war did lead to more war, violence, distrust, and hate
But that was not the only thing it led to.
The point was that violence in the case of the Elves' situation would lead only to more violence.
If this is true, then I misunderstood it to be a blanket statement, in which case, I apologize.
The point was that violence in the case of the Elves' situation would lead only to more violence.
As it should.
But that was not the only thing it led to.
the continued enslavement of blacks, a war, another near miss for a war, the continued genocide of native Americans, etc...
sure eventually good came out of it, but not immediately, or even within 50 years, unless you were a wealthy white man
the continued enslavement of blacks, a war, another near miss for a war, the continued genocide of native Americans, etc...
sure eventually good came out of it, but not immediately, or even within 50 years, unless you were a wealthy white man
Why does every one keep harping on the slave issue <_<''
It's over and done with jeez. (A long with a cotton empire worth billions that isn't even present to a tenth of a scale in the modern united states)
Why does every one keep harping on the slave issue <_<''
It's over and done with jeez. (A long with a cotton empire worth billions that isn't even present to a tenth of a scale in the modern united states)
because it was an atrocity no matter how you look at it
and hell, I'm a southerner, I had relatives fight (on both sides) and some who kept slaves
because it was an atrocity no matter how you look at it
and hell, I'm a southerner, I had relatives fight (on both sides) and some who kept slaves
Besides from a profitability standpoint i suppose, Although the Southern States really had to rig the field to make it so, Because generally employing slave labor isn't cost effective in comparison to freed labor. But enough of that, this drifting off course.
Really? As did i, We should converse about that sometime, Although to be honest erm...All the relatives i have uncovered that i am actually related to directly only fought for one side of that conflict >_> And it was the side that well, possessed the legal right (once constitutionally protected) to own other human beings.
the continued enslavement of blacks, a war, another near miss for a war, the continued genocide of native Americans, etc...
sure eventually good came out of it, but not immediately, or even within 50 years, unless you were a wealthy white man
As a mixed (black-white) person, I'm well aware. As I said above, I didn't invoke it as a perfect parallel - all I wanted to do was give an example of violence accomplishing a stated goal i. e. independence.
As a mixed (black-white) person, I'm well aware. As I said above, I didn't invoke it as a perfect parallel - all I wanted to do was give an example of violence accomplishing a stated goal i. e. independence.
Are people still pretending as though it was an exact parallel? Considering how many times this has been pointed out in multiple pages, maybe the discussion can actually focus on an elven homeland, and not disingenuous statements that were clarified pages ago?
Are people still pretending as though it was an exact parallel? Considering how many times this has been pointed out in multiple pages, maybe the discussion can actually focus on an elven homeland, and not disingenuous statements that were clarified pages ago?
People should choose Parallels that actually fit then.
Why the hell are we talking about history on a Dragon Age thread? Can we get back to the issue at hand?
As I said earlier, the Haitian Revolution is probably a better example, as they were pretty cut off from the world afterwards for a time, like the elves would be.
Retour en haut