2113 réponses à ce sujet

[Master Warder Z_]

84 pages in 3 days. I'd say this is the most hot button issue within the series at the moment. I hope it's explored thoroughly in DA:I.

 

90% of its Lob repeating himself you realize?

[Tenebrae]

You sort of had to shoot yourself in the foot to get that ending...like seriously.

"Oh the tears? Forget those my dear, how about another cup of coco? It has marshmallows!"

[Roamingmachine]

90% of its Lob repeating himself you realize?

No, I'd say it's about 50% (and good on him for having the energy, I certainly don't have it anymore). The other half being the opposition repeating themselves. Why this thread is left to run around in circles is a mystery.

[LobselVith8]

I doubt the demons will content themselves with just Orlais, if the fade fails and the tears spread no nation/people would be safe.

Not necessarily, if the developers meant that spirits could win in certain regions, and not throughout Thedas. A place may be overrun by dangerous spirits without the whole of Thedas falling to spirits.

Perhaps that plays a part in Inquisition and the varied endings. How will Ferelden and the Dales fare if the Orlesian Empire fell? How will the elves of the Dales react to the absence of their Orlesian overlords? Things like that may impact the different outcomes of the story.

[TK514]

No, I'd say it's about 50% (and good on him for having the energy, I certainly don't have it anymore). The other half being the opposition repeating themselves. Why this thread is left to run around in circles is a mystery.

 

The mods like to let these go for a bit until they really get out of hand.  While not perfect containment, it tends to keep most of the worst in one place.

 

Sometimes things even get discussed.  Not often, mind you, but sometimes.

[Tevinter Rose]

No, I'd say it's about 50% (and good on him for having the energy, I certainly don't have it anymore). The other half being the opposition repeating themselves. Why this thread is left to run around in circles is a mystery.

 

It was interesting in the beginning, then it devolved into an elf complaint inbox

[LobselVith8]

It was interesting in the beginning, then it devolved into an elf complaint inbox

And thinly veiled racist rants. Unfortunately.

[Aimi]

I'm learning a lot here, so thank you for these posts. My time studying the classical period was mainly spent looking at the conclusions we were able to draw from architecture etc and so (although I hadn't really thought about it) in many respects I am quite ignorant of the socio-political motivations of the nations involved, and even that has grown rusty since it was almost four years ago I last looked at any of it. It's interesting to have my assumptions challenged, and it's encouraged me to read more on the subject.

 


With Achaimenid Iran, architecture is one of the few things we have; non-Greek written records are all late (like, Muslim-era late) and apart from that it's mostly just inscriptions. (For these purposes, I consider the Jewish Ketuvim that address Iran - Daniel, Esther, Ezra, etc. - to be "Greek" because they mostly were composed in the Hellenistic period; much Daniel itself has been recently argued to be a Hashmonayim-era allegory, with the Iranians standing in for the Seleukid Empire.) What we know about the Achaimenid shahanshahs, however, suggests that they did enslave defeated enemies, although probably not in the sorts of numbers that Rome did. When they conquered Egypt, a society with a slave-based economy, those slaves were not emancipated. Later Iranian empires - which are better sourced, too - did the same thing: the Ashkanian/Pahlava/Parthian and Sasanian empires both incorporated slavery.

Like other rulers, Iranian shahanshahs used their priesthood as a prop for their rule, justifying their actions. "Magi" are portrayed both by Herodotos and the later Jewish writers as having played a key role in the early empire's government. The wars with the united Greeks were partially portrayed as wars to destroy the sacrilegious (the Athenian army that sacked Sardis is said to have damaged or destroyed temples there). Later on, Sasanian shahanshahs actively persecuted followers of non-Zoroastrian religions in various ways, ranging from a reduction in legal rights (e.g. "only non-Zoroastrians can be enslaved") to murder (the most violent anti-Christian purges before the twentieth century, with tens of thousands of reported victims during the reign of Sahbuhr II alone).

None of these was a particularly Iranian trait; the Roman Empire ran on slavery as well, and Roman religion was used for fairly grotesque purposes by the state.

The Achaimenid rulers, especially Kurush, have gotten a pretty good rap as "tolerant" in the West. The first reason for this is the Ketuvim, which were later incorporated into the Christian Bible, and which depict Iranian rulers as generally being tolerant of Judaism. They are the patrons of Daniel and Nehemiah and they facilitate the end of the Babylonian Captivity. While that's well and good, it's a fairly jaundiced portrait; resettling the Jews was a relatively cheap way to gain a loyal population in an area that is difficult to govern, and it's not necessarily an indicator of praiseworthy tolerance.

The second reason is a book by the Athenian Xenophon, who wrote Kurou paideia (The Education of Cyrus [Kurush]). As the model for many, many subsequent works (including Il Principe), Kurou paideia showed how a stereotypically ingenuous prince was taught how to be a perfect, wise, and kind ruler. It was not a true-to-life description; most of the work has nothing whatsoever to do with Iranian education or with Kurush himself, and is an application of Spartan and Athenian tutoring methods to a historical ruler to give it a bit of verisimilitude. It has been argued that Kurush must have been at least somewhat like the man shown in Kurou paideia, because otherwise it would've been recognized by contemporaries as pure nonsense. Where there's smoke (stories about an idealized, tolerant ruler), there's fire (the reality of a better-than-usual monarch with some sense of morality). Maybe that's the case, but it's a long way from "maybe the real Kurush wasn't a total bag of dicks" to "Achaimenid Iran as a beacon of morality in classical times".
 

If we are using the Roman example then the cessation of expansion in to Germania was the begining of the end, it began a trend that turned the legions from a well oiled war machine to an ever deteriorating police force, and as the legions deteriorated so did the empire, as Sun Tzu said: “Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will eventually rust.”

That would be a wonderful thesis if it were at all true.

Unfortunately, it isn't.

[TK514]

It was interesting in the beginning, then it devolved into an elf complaint inbox

 

Less interesting when you've heard it all before, but it was the elf part of the cycle.  It'll swing back to mages in due time, and we'll do this all over again for them.

[LOLandStuff]

And thinly veiled racist rants. Unfortunately.

 

 

One can hardly be racist when it comes to elves.

[Dean_the_Young]

 

I dunno. That's pretty tricky. It's also contextually dependent; in the modern world order, I would say that I can't think of any morally valid reason. But in premodern history, when "public opinion" and "nationalist sentiment" were virtually nonexistent, many of the reasons that conquering stuff is bad become less relevant. Starting and fighting a war, with all that that entails, is bad enough, but...yeah, I dunno.
 

 

More than fair enough. Thanks for being willing to answer such a loaded question.

[Tenebrae]

 That would be a wonderful thesis if it were at all true.

Unfortunately, it isn't.

I never said it was the only factor that led to that fall of Rome, only that it was the beginning of it all, with the deterioration of Rome's military supremacy and the legions failure to adept the empire eventually fell, no military supremacy=no conquest which in Rome's case equals economic stagnation and so on and so forth.

 

A little of topic but s far as i see it the reasons for Rome's fall are as followed:

 

1) Depopulation -- Plagues and low birth rate among Roman citizens led to depopulation in the Empire. In order to combat different times when this occurred, barbarian tribes were actually welcomed into the Empire and encouraged to "set up shop". Romans ate many foods polluted with lead and did not understand the harm that caused.

 

2) Economic stagnation -- Roman wealth, especially in the west, deteriorated over time so that by the 4th century the barbarian tribes outside the Empire were often just as wealthy as the Empire itself.

 

3) Barbarianism of the Roman military -- Roman legions were populated more and more by barbarians and less and less by Romans, including many of the generals. Over time the barbarians learned and were trained in Roman tactics as well so that the distinction between Romans and barbarian armies became blurred. Near the end of the Empire, barbarian and mercenary armies had become an integral part of Roman military protection.

 

4) Military despotism -- While the early Emperors still had to deal with the senate, later Emperors ruled through military strength alone. Civil wars were common, especially during the age of 30 tyrants when the Empire was in a constant state of internal warfare and chaos. That the Empire didn't fall during this time is a testament to the ongoing discipline of their legions at that point in their history.

 

5) Military advances -- Changes over centuries began to give cavalry a more prominent role than it had previously been capable of. In other words the Roman legion, the mainstay of Roman power, lost some of its dominance.

 

6) The Roman Empire was always in danger of fall. Spartacus and his army of freed slaves came close to overcoming Rome as did Hannibal. Eventually luck ran out for Rome.

 

My point was that conquest/war by its very nature is a vital part of any nation/state that wishes to avoid stagnation, looking for a "moral" reason for war/conquest is meaning less as morality has no place in war only pragmatism.

 

Not necessarily, if the developers meant that spirits could win in certain regions, and not throughout Thedas. A place may be overrun by dangerous spirits without the whole of Thedas falling to spirits.

Perhaps that plays a part in Inquisition and the varied endings. How will Ferelden and the Dales fare if the Orlesian Empire fell? How will the elves of the Dales react to the absence of their Orlesian overlords? Things like that may impact the different outcomes of the story.

 

It's a possibility, but tell what's to stop the tears from spreading? Sure you can close them but as long as they are present what is to stop them from expanding when our valiant hero "disappears"?

[Steelcan]

Dammit the children of Dido will have their revenge upon the sons of Aeneas!

 

Roma Ultima et Maxima Est