2341 réponses à ce sujet

[The Baconer]

You really think Gaspard would have reacted the same way if it had actually be a consequential decision in so far resulting in his possible defeat?

 

It kind of was, though. The duel certainly wasn't won through his own efforts.

[Master Warder Z_]

It kind of was, though. The duel certainly wasn't won through his own efforts.

 

He fought as good as he could and was bested, Michel however still surrendered.

 

Gaspard won even if only came about from default.

 

 

Agree. Gaspard has flaws and people seem to overlook them a lot, he is no Tywin Lannister not even a Bhelen. 

 

Gaspard has a flaw but i think his technical skill seems to overcome that considering he seems willing to employ a wide variety of tactics and is quite capable of adjusting to situations on the fly.

[The Baconer]

He fought as good as he could and was bested, Michel however still surrendered.

 

Gaspard won even if only came about from default.

 

Right, victory came to Gaspard as a total stroke of luck, meaning that his decision to kill Remache earlier indeed could have lead to his defeat.

[Mihura]

Right, victory came to Gaspard as a total stroke of luck, meaning that his decision to kill Remache earlier indeed could have lead to his defeat.

 

Can I hug you?

[Master Warder Z_]

Right, victory came to Gaspard as a total stroke of luck, meaning that his decision to kill Remache earlier indeed could have lead to his defeat.

Considering he wouldn't have allowed interference it wouldn't have been a factor.

He would win or lose on his own merit.

[The Baconer]

Considering he wouldn't have allowed interference it wouldn't have been a factor.

He would win or lose on his own merit.

 

Well, he won by someone else's merit... so it certainly ended up being a factor.

 

I mean, even if Briala hadn't ordered Michel to stand down he was (unknowingly) being aided by magic. He certainly had no problem taking the win in spite of this.

[Drasanil]

Well, he won by someone else's merit... so it certainly ended up being a factor.

 

I mean, even if Briala hadn't ordered Michel to stand down he was (unknowingly) being aided by magic. He certainly had no problem taking the win in spite of this.

 

Well he pretty much won by Celene's lack of merit. There's a reason Briala stabbed her in the back at the last minute, she was returning the favor. 

[The Baconer]

Well he pretty much won by Celene's lack of merit. There's a reason Briala stabbed her in the back at the last minute, she was returning the favor. 

 

Okay, but that has nothing to do with the erroneous notion that Gaspard is too honor-bound to allow others to interfere on his behalf.

[HK-90210]

Just saying, he might use a military response for every little problem. I feel that someone who actually specializes in diplomacy should govern, while someone who has military experience should work with military matters. Simple matter of using your assets to their fullest.

 

You talk as if diplomacy and the military are mutually exclusive. Some of the best politicians in history have been military first. And some of the worst see the military as a mere weapon precisely because they did not appreciate its power outside of mere war and battles. A strong, peacetime military is a powerful diplomatic force. Many politicians have failed to understand that over the course of human history.

 

Also, if you've held a position of power in any military, you already know politics. Few are given command through merit alone. They have to work with people, impress the right ones, don't ****** off the wrong ones, show competence, show initiative, stand out in the right ways. It's amazing just how much politicking you have to do in order to be appointed to any post of significance in the military.

 

Besides, during a time of war you do not want a person in charge who doesn't understand the use of military force, nor do you want someone interfering in their army's strategy/tactics when they don't know what they're doing. Take Celene's decision to march her army hard straight to Halmshiral. Had she been thinking militarily, she would have taken a little more time, and her men might not have been so exhausted before the confrontation with Gaspard. Gaspard, however, knew that Celene would not think of this, and played it brilliantly. Had Briala not saved Celene, it would have been a master stroke and Gaspard would have been Emperor after one battle.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that a military leader is always the best candidate for leadership of a country, nor that civilian leaders make poor ones. Just saying that you shouldn't throw out military leaders when making your choice.

[draken-heart]

You talk as if diplomacy and the military are mutually exclusive. Some of the best politicians in history have been military first. And some of the worst see the military as a mere weapon precisely because they did not appreciate its power outside of mere war and battles. A strong, peacetime military is a powerful diplomatic force. Many politicians have failed to understand that over the course of human history.
 
Also, if you've held a position of power in any military, you already know politics. Few are given command through merit alone. They have to work with people, impress the right ones, don't ****** off the wrong ones, show competence, show initiative, stand out in the right ways. It's amazing just how much politicking you have to do in order to be appointed to any post of significance in the military.
 
Besides, during a time of war you do not want a person in charge who doesn't understand the use of military force, nor do you want someone interfering in their army's strategy/tactics when they don't know what they're doing. Take Celene's decision to march her army hard straight to Halmshiral. Had she been thinking militarily, she would have taken a little more time, and her men might not have been so exhausted before the confrontation with Gaspard. Gaspard, however, knew that Celene would not think of this, and played it brilliantly. Had Briala not saved Celene, it would have been a master stroke and Gaspard would have been Emperor after one battle.
 
To be clear, I'm not saying that a military leader is always the best candidate for leadership of a country, nor that civilian leaders make poor ones. Just saying that you shouldn't throw out military leaders when making your choice.

Again, my stance is that I simply do not trust Gaspard to be a good emperor. Being a great military leader means nothing if you cannot EVER separate the two. Which is why I prefer the military best to try to avoid the throne, because they could see the world unlike what is probably better.

Honor means nothing in politics and diplomacy. Something the "honorable" will not understand. Sometimes honor has to be ignored in order to win. Both sides are arguing over a petty throne when the world is going to [censored]. How can I pick a side when there are more important issues, and I have no clue who is indeed right?

[draken-heart]

Again, my stance is that I simply do not trust Gaspard to be a good emperor. Being a great military leader means nothing if you cannot EVER separate the two. Which is why I prefer the military best to try to avoid the throne, because they could see the world unlike what is probably better.

Honor means nothing in politics and diplomacy. Something the "honorable" will not understand. Sometimes honor has to be ignored in order to win. Both sides are arguing over a petty throne when the world is going to [censored]. How can I pick a side when there are more important issues, and I have no clue who is indeed right?

I am going to end this discussion with IF Celene ends up being the right choice for Orlais, then she gets the Throne, and IF Gaspard is the right choice for Orlais, then he gets it.

[HK-90210]

Again, my stance is that I simply do not trust Gaspard to be a good emperor. Being a great military leader means nothing if you cannot EVER separate the two. Which is why I prefer the military best to try to avoid the throne, because they could see the world unlike what is probably better.

 

A non-military leader can be just as blind to the world as a military one. A non-military leader can fail to see a threat where there is one just as easliy as a military leader can see one that isn't there. Someone who doesn't understand a war-like mentality is the last person you want in charge when the fit hits the shan.

 

Take the Munich Agreement in 1938, where Britain agreed to give Hilter parts of Czechoslovakia, provided he go no further into Europe. This was an incredibly popular agreement in both the government amoungst the common people. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, a man who never served in the military and, in my opinion, never understood how bad a person like Hitler could be, truly believed that if he just gave Hitler what he wanted, and exacted a promise from the man, that would be the end of it. Said Chamberlain:

 

"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." A year later, there was a World War II.

 

At the time, future Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a 25-yr veteran of the British military and a man who DID understand the kind of person Hitler was and how inneffective such appeasemant would be, gave one of the greatest and most prophetic speaches of modern poltiical history to the House of Commons. He outlined the failures of Britain to prepare itself for war, to make alliances with other nations, to prevent Czechoslovakia from falling into the hands of the Nazi regime. And he made no qualms about the fact that the Nazis were not out friends, and friendship was not to be had with them. He even mentioned just how powerless many commonfolk in Germany were to stop their own country from its present course. My favorite passage, and one of the most famous quotes from Churchill, is this:

 

"And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."

 

Churchill showed backbone and moral fortitude in the face of a LOT of critisism when he made this speech. But in his heart, he knew how powerful the Third Reich was, and has tyrannical Hitler's regime was. He was a military man, Chamberlain was not. Which one of them understood the nature of Hitler, and what he would do? I think the military man, clearly.

 

I know this was kind of an off-topic tangent, but it was the best way I felt I could make my point, which is simply this: Sometimes a military leader is the only one brave enough or wise enough to see the threat that non-military men would try to ignore or appease, in hopes that war can be avoided. Does this mean that Gaspard is the better choice? No. I'd hardly equate the man with Churchill. But both of them share a military mind and background, and in my opinion, this does not count against them.

[draken-heart]

A non-military leader can be just as blind to the world as a military one. A non-military leader can fail to see a threat where there is one just as easliy as a military leader can see one that isn't there. Someone who doesn't understand a war-like mentality is the last person you want in charge when the fit hits the shan.
 
Take the Munich Agreement in 1938, where Britain agreed to give Hilter parts of Czechoslovakia, provided he go no further into Europe. This was an incredibly popular agreement in both the government amoungst the common people. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, a man who never served in the military and, in my opinion, never understood how bad a person like Hitler could be, truly believed that if he just gave Hitler what he wanted, and exacted a promise from the man, that would be the end of it. Said Chamberlain:
 
"My good friends, for the second time in our history a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." A year later, there was a World War II.
 
At the time, future Prime Minister Winston Churchill, a 25-yr veteran of the British military and a man who DID understand the kind of person Hitler was and how inneffective such appeasemant would be, gave one of the greatest and most prophetic speaches of modern poltiical history to the House of Commons. He outlined the failures of Britain to prepare itself for war, to make alliances with other nations, to prevent Czechoslovakia from falling into the hands of the Nazi regime. And he made no qualms about the fact that the Nazis were not out friends, and friendship was not to be had with them. He even mentioned just how powerless many commonfolk in Germany were to stop their own country from its present course. My favorite passage, and one of the most famous quotes from Churchill, is this:
 
"And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time."
 
Churchill showed backbone and moral fortitude in the face of a LOT of critisism when he made this speech. But in his heart, he knew how powerful the Third Reich was, and has tyrannical Hitler's regime was. He was a military man, Chamberlain was not. Which one of them understood the nature of Hitler, and what he would do? I think the military man, clearly.
 
I know this was kind of an off-topic tangent, but it was the best way I felt I could make my point, which is simply this: Sometimes a military leader is the only one brave enough or wise enough to see the threat that non-military men would try to ignore or appease, in hopes that war can be avoided. Does this mean that Gaspard is the better choice? No. I'd hardly equate the man with Churchill. But both of them share a military mind and background, and in my opinion, this does not count against them.

I am going to end this discussion with IF Celene ends up being the right choice for Orlais, then she gets the Throne, and IF Gaspard is the right choice for Orlais, then he gets it.

[Smoolio]

Churchill wouldn't of tried to provoke my homeboy Teagan, like that warmonger Gaspard did. That is not his biggest crime though, being boring is, Celene's shenanigans are so much more interesting. Hope I can volunteer as her new champion and put down all these traitors. 

[GenericEnemy]

I'll help her. To hell with Gaspard.

 

Doglords for life. 

[Aimi]

[massive digression on Churchill]

There's a saying about stopped clocks...

Churchill was regarded as an unstable warmonger for most of his career. Nobody wanted to hear what he had to say about Nazi Germany because he had said that about basically every other country. He was one of the gung-ho imperialist Cabinet members that helped push for an aggressive policy in Europe before the First World War, a policy that by the 1930s was seen by many Britons as having precipitated an unnecessary conflict that caused the deaths of millions. He helped spark a civil war in Ireland with similar results. His time in the wilderness was marked by further apocalyptic claims, none of which came to fruition. And his postwar career was marked by embarrassing foreign-policy missteps, especially on decolonization, in which he insisted on viewing basically all the autonomy/independence movements as implacable enemies of Anglo-Saxon Civilization.

Churchill was right about Nazi Germany, yes. And that correct diagnosis does him some credit...but only some.

Also, it'd be a farce to refer to Churchill as a military leader whose warnings were ill heeded by the civilian cohort. Churchill's military service was basically at the subaltern level: he had no experience making strategy. When he ascended to the Cabinet and became First Lord of the Admiralty, he showed just how horrifically bad his strategic judgment actually was. He abandoned his Cabinet post to play at soldiers with the Royal Marines during the siege of Antwerp in the fall of 1914, an utterly pointless posting for British troops that was compounded by his personal presence on the ground instead of in London directing the activities of the Royal Navy worldwide. (At the time, German U-boats were wiping out big chunks of the Grand Fleet's battle line.) He then implemented a blockade against the neutral Ottoman Empire that helped drive that country into war with Britain, and followed it up with the bizarre, foolish, and costly Straits project that culminated in the bloodletting of Gallipoli and the end of his Admiralty career.

This was not a military resume that would inspire confidence, much less give Churchill any real authority on military matters as a political leader. Churchill was not right about Hitler because of his career in the Sudan and his colossal screwups at the Admiralty: he was right about Hitler because he was a war hawk who denounced basically everybody in the same fashion, and was therefore bound to be right about somebody. (Churchill, interestingly, thought Mussolini was a great Italian leader, and praised Fascism quite a lot...before Mussolini showed himself to be Hitler's ally in the late 1930s.)

EDIT: To be clear, I don't think that military experience and political/diplomatic skill are mutually exclusive. Many soldiers can do quite well as political leaders or diplomats. For example, the American presidents Grant and Eisenhower, both former generals, are highly regarded. Historically, most kings also fall into this category. Military-leaders-as-diplomats also have long pedigrees: the American Marshall, the Prussians Alvensleben and Manteuffel, the Frenchman Caulaincourt, the Austrian Schwarzenberg. I simply consider Churchill to be a startlingly poor example of the type...actually, I don't consider him to qualify for the type at all.

[In Exile]

You talk as if diplomacy and the military are mutually exclusive. Some of the best politicians in history have been military first. And some of the worst see the military as a mere weapon precisely because they did not appreciate its power outside of mere war and battles. A strong, peacetime military is a powerful diplomatic force. Many politicians have failed to understand that over the course of human history.

 

Also, if you've held a position of power in any military, you already know politics. Few are given command through merit alone. They have to work with people, impress the right ones, don't ****** off the wrong ones, show competence, show initiative, stand out in the right ways. It's amazing just how much politicking you have to do in order to be appointed to any post of significance in the military.

 

Besides, during a time of war you do not want a person in charge who doesn't understand the use of military force, nor do you want someone interfering in their army's strategy/tactics when they don't know what they're doing. Take Celene's decision to march her army hard straight to Halmshiral. Had she been thinking militarily, she would have taken a little more time, and her men might not have been so exhausted before the confrontation with Gaspard. Gaspard, however, knew that Celene would not think of this, and played it brilliantly. Had Briala not saved Celene, it would have been a master stroke and Gaspard would have been Emperor after one battle.

 

To be clear, I'm not saying that a military leader is always the best candidate for leadership of a country, nor that civilian leaders make poor ones. Just saying that you shouldn't throw out military leaders when making your choice.

 

That's the case in our military, but Orlais seems be a tad more hereditary about that. Gaspard comes from a well-established family and had the benefit of a name and connections. That's not to say he's an idiot or incapable. But connections go a long way to help an otherwise unassuming and unspectacular person get very, very far. 

[dragonflight288]

I feel a quote from Jade Empire is appropriate here, in regards to Gaspard.

 

Smiling Mountain will tell the Spirit Monk the difference between the two paths of harmony and discord.

 

"When your abilities are so much greater than those around you, there is the temptation to make things right by might alone. That is tyranny from within." 

 

Gaspard isn't one to follow harmony, in the Jade Empire sense yet I feel part of the quote applies to him, but there is the case that I simply do not see him capable of addressing any issue that doesn't in some way involve soldiers, violence or his chevalier code, the same code that allows Chevalier's to treat commoners how they please without reprisal and kill elves as a form of initiation. 

 

Gaspard, while honest, has no problem using war as his main tool. In his desire to unite Orlais, he would declare war on Ferelden and see thousands, even tens of thousands of people killed, and then you'd have either the Orlesian occupation all over again, with all their abuses running rampant as portrayed in the Stolen Throne, or he loses the war and nothing is gained beyond a weaker nation, and both results in the common man, and the elves, suffering needlessly. 

 

He's a soldier, war is his trade, and I have no confidence in him that he will approach problems any other way. 

 

This has nothing to do with my opinion on Celene, whom I also dislike greatly, but I do not trust Gaspard to do what is right for Orlais and its people rather than what he feels is best as a soldier with the skewed Chevalier's code of double-standard-honor.

[draken-heart]

Since I have not touched on "The Game" yet, might as well, and it had been touched upon before. I feel that the game IS Orlais, as much as the crows are Antiva. Both countries' politics use them for the nobles to prove themselves. As Zevran says about the crows and Antivan politics, They go hand-in-hand. Same thing with the game, it is a part of the nobility culture of Orlais.

Someone who does not use the game all the time is a person waiting to be snuffed out.

[dragonflight288]

Since I have not touched on "The Game" yet, might as well, and it had been touched upon before. I feel that the game IS Orlais, as much as the crows are Antiva. Both countries' politics use them for the nobles to prove themselves. As Zevran says about the crows and Antivan politics, They go hand-in-hand. Same thing with the game, it is a part of the nobility culture of Orlais.

Someone who does not use the game all the time is a person waiting to be snuffed out.

 

Or isn't a noble, and thus is only available to be slaughtered, used, or abused by players of the game. 

[HK-90210]

*long re-digression on Churchill*

 

Since I'd rather not go too far off-topic, I'll simply say that:

I don't think Churchill is a great military leader, but rather a great leader whose political outlook was heavily influenced by his military service and background.

That I don't think him being a hawk in any way mitigates or downgrades his spot-on estimation of the Nazi regime and its intentions.

Churchill's support of Mussolini partially existed due to most of Britain seeing Italy as a possible/likely ally against Germany until the mid 1930s, and faded fairly quickly once that was no longer likely. Right along with FDR's praising of the man while pushing for the New Deal. Fascism didn't really become a 'bad thing', politically speaking, until WWII and Mussolini threw his lot in with Hitler.

 

My point had to do with the fact that drakon-heart was arguing that military service/outlook is a negative trait when it comes to national leaders. I was arguing that this is not the case. And it sounds like you and I agree on that. Just not about Churchill, which is fair. We also don't agree on Grant(Who I think was an excellent general, but a poor president). Agreed on Eisenhower though. I like Ike.

 

So to shift this on topic, I think Gaspard's military outlook and hawkish attitude are positives, not negatives. And everyone bashing him as a man who is out to get Ferelden are missing a key part of Gaspard's outlook, in my opinion. That part is that he thinks Celene has led Orlais down such a weakening path that war is the best way to unite everyone and make Orlais strong again. It's not about Ferelden(though I'm sure that Gaspard wants Orlais' old territory back), it's about Orlais. Gaspard loves his country, and doesn't want to see it fall because a weak monarch let the country stagnate and wither. And regardless the fact that the Civil War has occurred means that Ferelden is safe from Orlais for quite some time. As much as Gaspard favors invasion, he's not a fool when it comes to military strategy. And any decent general would know that Orlais' weakened forces would stand little chance of success.

[leaguer of one]

Considering he wouldn't have allowed interference it wouldn't have been a factor.

He would win or lose on his own merit.

But he didn't win own his own merit.

[leaguer of one]

I am going to end this discussion with IF Celene ends up being the right choice for Orlais, then she gets the Throne, and IF Gaspard is the right choice for Orlais, then he gets it.

Why don't we agree the they are both the right choice of the shape point of my ax?

[leaguer of one]

But the whole point of cancer is that it doesn't quit.

Radiation and carving it out makes it quit.

 

So the choice is burning them all and/or carving them into pieces.

[Drasanil]

But he didn't win own his own merit.

 

The forum...

 

Why don't we agree the they are both the right choice of the shape point of my ax?

 

...has a multi-quote function...

 

Radiation and carving it out makes it quit.

 

So the choice is burning them all and/or carving them into pieces.

 

...for a reason