807 réponses à ce sujet

[The Hierophant]

So you ARE having a hard time with historical analysis. Did you even bother to try an apply source criticism? You see, this is a source originating from a group of people EXTREMELY hostile to the Chantry, so of course they would blame the Chantry, they would probably even lie about it themselves. The Chantry prior to Red Crossing confined itself to PRIMARILY exactly the same as they have always been doing: Ministering their faith to the masses, and other churchly matters. But yes, there had been hostility between the Chantry/Orlais and the Dales prior to the incident at Red Crossing. So? How does that constitute a history of violence for the Chantry? NONE of what you've said so far, even remotely suggest that the Chantry uses violence as their main tool of "negotiation". Actually everything points towards the Chantry using violence as an absolute last resort.

 

This entire branch of the thread started with Dalish-apologists' feeble attempt at whitewashing the Dalish for all the **** they've done.

What gets me is how members of a special forces unit massacred a civilan search party instead of disengageing the group, and retreating across the border. Again we have a special forces unit slaughtering civilians. Like some sort of inverse of the Chevaliers.

[EmperorSahlertz]

What gets me is how members of a special forces unit massacred a civilan search party instead of disengageing the group, and retreating across the border. Again we have a special forces unit slaughtering civilians. Like some sort of inverse of the Chevaliers.

I'm sure those damn sexy humans had it comming...

[Jedi Master of Orion]

And this has to do with the Chantry's previous history, what? The Chantry was not yet a thing, so you cannot hold the Chantry accountable for the way Drakon (expertly I might add) used faith to unite his people. The Chantry, by the time of the war with the Dales, DID NOT have a history of violence. On the contrary, it had a history of uniting people and dfending them against the onslaught of darkness.

 

 

Drakon formed the Chantry himself. He picked the first Divine and even wrote part of the Chant. It's not like there is no connection between the actions of one and the actions of another. Plus, "Codex Entry: The Wrath of Heaven" seems to suggest that the Chantry followed suit with suppressing heretical cults.

 

Uniting and defending people against darkness and having any history of violence are not mutually exclusive.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

In the Jaws of Hakkon DLC, one of Ameridan's memories confirms that even before the Second Blight the Dales did not like Drakon, seeing him as no better than Tevinter.

 

The hostility became mutual when because of their dislike of Drakon the Dales sat out the Second Blight, letting the Darkspawn ravage Orlais for nearly a century while they just watched. 

 

This mutual hostility reached a boiling point after the events of Red Crossing when the Dales launched an invasion of Orlais. 

 

No matter what point of time you look at, the hostility began from the Dales making them the aggressors. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

Actually what Ameridan said was that they thought "Drakon" was no better than the Imperium.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Actually what Ameridan said was that they thought "Drakon" was no better than the Imperium.

I edited. Still doesn't negate the fact their hatred towards an individual was so great they were fine with the genocide that occurred from the Blight. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Drakon formed the Chantry himself. He picked the first Divine and even wrote part of the Chant. It's not like there is no connection between the actions of one and the actions of another. Plus, "Codex Entry: The Wrath of Heaven" seems to suggest that the Chantry followed suit with suppressing heretical cults.

 

Uniting and defending people against darkness and having any history of violence are not mutually exclusive.

Apparently people on BSN have a major problem with chronology...

 

The Chantry WAS NOT YET the Chantry when Drakon was conquering the disparate tribes of what-would-be Orlais, so anything that happened at that time, cannot be attributed to the Chantry. Simple as that.

 

The Chantry in the Glory Age, DID NOT yet have a history of violence. It didn't. End of discussion. There is nothing more to add or subtract here. Yes, it might LATER have started to use violence in some cases, but even THEN it never really used it as anything else than a last resort.

 

Compared to the Dalish, who apaprently used violence as the first and only resort, that is a damn good track record.

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The Chantry existed at the same time Drakon did. And it wasn't formed from thin air. Everything he did to make it doesn't become irrelevant after it was formed. Nor is there any reason to think that Drakon would done any kind of about face after he created it.

 

"We must remember the legends of Andraste were multitude in the years immediately following her execution, and beliefs we take for granted belong to the 'cult' victorious in suppressing all others." - Codex Entry: The Wrath of Heaven.

[Deztyn]

Because you originally wrote "at this point in time", it looked like you were talking about the present. But even if you were talking about the point in time where Red Crossing happened, you were mistaken:
 
http://dragonage.wik...ath_of_Elandrin
 
"Too often had we fought with humans along our borders until the beginning was lost to memory. Rumors of an abduction stirred. As always, their Chantry was swift to spread lies. In haste and anger, they killed Siona's sister for wandering too near the hunters' path."

Reading these last few pages makes my head hurt.

How can I put this. . .

. . . Arguing that the Exalted March on the Dales proves that the Chantry has a history of aggression towards the Elves before Red Crossing, is a lot like trying to argue that Morrigan's Dark Ritual proves that the Grey Wardens have always preserved Archdemon souls by implanting them in children.

Just because it is happening "now" does not mean it always happened.

There is no reason to believe that there was wide spread hatred towards the Elves until they refused to get involved in the Second Blight. That's 90 years of watching humanity nearly wiped out while refusing to help. 90 years. Almost a century of humans fighting alone against the darkspawn horde while the Elves watched. Literally watched in the case of the darkspawn attack on Montsimmard.

A century of doing nothing while humans are slaughtered and their lands are so ravaged by the Blight that 800 years later you can still see the damage is not going to endear them to their human neighbors.

And then just 15 years after the Blight ended, there was Red Crossing, where the Elves "proved" to the Orlesian people that they *wanted* to see human communities wiped out.


And Bowie, that paragraph doesn't prove what you think it proves.

It says that even the Elves writing the codex entry don't remember when they started fighting with humans or why. They just do. A lot. Because reasons. That doesn't mean the Elves didn't start it.

It says that there were abductions of humans, which the humans have attributed to elves conducting blood magic rituals, as we know from other codex entries. The writer calls these rumors Chantry lies, but considering the number of crazy blood mages running around Thedas *now* I see no reason to dismiss that claim as pure propaganda. It might mean it wasn't the Elves responsible. It might just mean it wasn't anything known to or approved by the Emerald Knights.

It says that Sionas sister was killed while being close to areas of human traffic, while these rumors of human sacrifice were spreading. She could have been in human lands at the time, that much isn't clear one way or another.

 

Edit: because apparently I can't get posters names right, even when quoting them. Sorry.

 

I blame autocorrect.

Modifié par Deztyn, 02 juin 2015 - 12:20 .

[Deztyn]

What gets me is how members of a special forces unit massacred a civilan search party instead of disengageing the group, and retreating across the border. Again we have a special forces unit slaughtering civilians. Like some sort of inverse of the Chevaliers.

 

It was revenge for all of the innocent elves the Chevaliers killed.

 

Obviously.

 

[myahele]

Here's the codex entry stating that Elves were too unruly and wont broker peace (probably control by blood magic, too)

 

The Path of Flame

Remember where Andraste's Champions first set foot in the Exalted Plains, called Dirthavaren by the elves.

Halamshiral's dark heart was conquered, but one last challenge came from the elves, who would not submit to the Maker. They gathered upon the plain; our Champions answered their call. Marching in Andraste's Light, on the Path of Flame: Lord Demetrius Aron, Sister Amity, and Ser Brandis of Lac Celestine, called the Silver Helm.

Demetrius's End

Remember Lord Demetrius Aron, the only one of Andraste's Champions to fall.

The forces of the Exalted March met the elves upon the field; our numbers far exceeded theirs. The Champions, kind and fair, gave the elves a chance for peace, but the elves would not lay down their arms. They slew Lord Demetrius in their charge. Maker take him to His side.

Lindiranae's Fall

Remember the victory of the Dales.

The elves were murderous and wild, for the Maker's grace did not touch them. The wildest of them was the she-elf Lindiranae, wielder of the great blade Evanura. Defiant to the last, she met Ser Brandis, the Silver Helm, in single combat, and he bested her. With Lindiranae fell the Dales.

Triumph of the Light

Remember the triumph over the profane.

Sister Amity led the march to the river Tenasir, where stood shrines to the elven gods. These she struck down; standing upon the banks, she sang the Chant of Light. Andraste's Word had come to the Dales, and delivered them from wickedness.

[Bowie Hawkins]

So you ARE having a hard time with historical analysis. Did you even bother to try an apply source criticism? You see, this is a source originating from a group of people EXTREMELY hostile to the Chantry,

 

And yet it is the same source that people like you use as the basis for their arguments that the Dalish were totally in the wrong and the humans were totally in the right, while choosing to ignore not just anything in it that you can't spin into a "Elbs Are Teh EEbul" line of argument but the fact that the source I've been citing is trying to be more objective than you can manage by not trying to spin the death of the human woman at Red Crossing as something other than a tragic accident.

 

No matter what point of time you look at, the hostility began from the Dales making them the aggressors. 

 

Not if you take the actual history into account, since that would include the humans killing Siona's sister before Red crossing.

 

Apparently people on BSN have a major problem with chronology...

 

Since you keep replying to my point about how, in the present day as of Inquisition, the Chantry has a history of being the religious aggressors by pointing out that they didn't have one before they started the first Exalted March, you do seem to be right about that one thing, even though you're wrong about whom the actual guilty parties are.

 

Reading these last few pages makes my head hurt.

How can I put this. . .

. . . Arguing that the Exalted March on the Dales proves that the Chantry has a history of aggression towards the Elves before Red Crossing, 

 

I did not argue any such thing. As I've pointed out to the other guy at least twice now, when I said the Chantry has a history of doing that I was talking about the history of the Chantry as of the point where Inquisition takes place. So if you want to try replying to an argument I made, could you please reply to one I actually made?

[Deztyn]

I did not argue any such thing. As I've pointed out to the other guy at least twice now, when I said the Chantry has a history of doing that I was talking about the history of the Chantry as of the point where Inquisition takes place.

Hmmmm....
 

 

TIL broder disputes that are mentioned off hand are undeniable evidence of human aggression towards elves

remind me, who got invaded? Because logic would dictate that the ones who did the invading were likely the ones causing problems in the first place

There is more proof of human aggression against elves than of them being totally innocent of it, with things like the City elf origin in DAO being just one example. You can try to handwave that away if you feel you absolutely must, but that won't make it any less true.

 

Sure looks like you were arguing that the way elves are treated now is reflective of the way they were treated prior to Red Crossing.
 

So if you want to try replying to an argument I made, could you please reply to one I actually made?

 

I did that right here:
 

And Bowie, that paragraph doesn't prove what you think it proves.

It says that even the Elves writing the codex entry don't remember when they started fighting with humans or why. They just do. A lot. Because reasons. That doesn't mean the Elves didn't start it.

It says that there were abductions of humans, which the humans have attributed to elves conducting blood magic rituals, as we know from other codex entries. The writer calls these rumors Chantry lies, but considering the number of crazy blood mages running around Thedas *now* I see no reason to dismiss that claim as pure propaganda. It might mean it wasn't the Elves responsible. It might just mean it wasn't anything known to or approved by the Emerald Knights.

It says that Sionas sister was killed while being close to areas of human traffic, while these rumors of human sacrifice were spreading. She could have been in human lands at the time, that much isn't clear one way or another.

 

But you ignored it and only quoted part of my post.

[Bowie Hawkins]

Sure looks like you were arguing that the way elves are treated now is reflective of the way they were treated prior to Red Crossing.

 

But you ignored it and only quoted part of my post.

 

I was citing the killing of Siona's sister as one example of humans as the aggressors in the conflicts between the humans and elves, and I was citing the City elf origin as a second example of that. And since both of those happen before Inquisition the contradiction you're trying to ibnvent out of nothing doesn't actually exist. 

 

And since you started off your post with a textbook example of the strawman fallacy, I stopped reading after seeing how much effort you put into replying to something that I never said. Try not doing that in future.

[Deztyn]

Translation: Since I have no way of refuting what you posted in response to my repeated insistance that the codex entry proves that humans were the aggressors and the Chantry are elf-hating liars, I'll just call you a poopyhead and run away!

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Not if you take the actual history into account, since that would include the humans killing Siona's sister before Red crossing.

I did take real history into account. The animosity has been going on for decades before Siona's sister's death, an animosity that started when the Dales didn't help but just watched the people of Orlais suffer for nearly a century from the worst enemy in Thedosian history.

You're acting like her death was the first incident to happen, which is blatantly untrue. We don't even know the circumstances of her death.

 

 

And yet it is the same source that people like you use as the basis for their arguments that the Dalish were totally in the wrong and the humans were totally in the right, while choosing to ignore not just anything in it that you can't spin into a "Elbs Are Teh EEbul" line of argument but the fact that the source I've been citing is trying to be more objective than you can manage by not trying to spin the death of the human woman at Red Crossing as something other than a tragic accident.

A tragic accident? What they did was murder. In every way, shape, and form. And before you go "Well they thought she had something dangerous", they issued no warning and went from nothing straight to the kill. That lack of trying to stop her non-lethally makes it not an accident but a deliberate end of someone's life. 

 

I like and pity elves. Or at least the City Elves and the slaves in Tevinter. But the Dales were the aggressors in this conflict.

[In Exile]

I'm not refuting that. Calling it an invasion is however, a fallacy.

If the USSR had a rogue troop of Spetznaz (sp?) wander into the US and kill a substantial portion of a small town's inhabitants in Alaska you'd probably see the invasion label thrown about IRL. But I agree it's not tehnically accurate despite its rhetorical force.

[Boost32]

If the USSR had a rogue troop of Spetznaz (sp?) wander into the US and kill a substantial portion of a small town's inhabitants in Alaska you'd probably see the invasion label thrown about IRL. But I agree it's not tehnically accurate despite its rhetorical force.

Does in english a invasion mean only military occupation?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Does in english a invasion mean only military occupation?

Yes. Otherwise you would use a word like "incursion". Invasion is a term used when military forces agressively enter a foreign or opposing territory, generally with the objective of conquering, liberating, or regaining control.

[EmperorSahlertz]

And yet it is the same source that people like you use as the basis for their arguments that the Dalish were totally in the wrong and the humans were totally in the right, while choosing to ignore not just anything in it that you can't spin into a "Elbs Are Teh EEbul" line of argument but the fact that the source I've been citing is trying to be more objective than you can manage by not trying to spin the death of the human woman at Red Crossing as something other than a tragic accident.

No one. NO ONE is trying to say the humans were totally in the right. But then again, the humans didn't invade a foreign nation for undisclosed reasons....

And the death of the woman in Red Crossing was anything BUT an "accident". It was coldblooded murder. On the contrary we don't even know waht happened to Siona's sister. We know she was walking too far from the hunter's path and that she died. That's it. We don't know if it were humans or Elves who killed her. hell it could've been a ****** bear that mauled her. But the Dalish immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was the humans. And even if it were the humans who killed her, we don't know who, why, or what happened to them. They might've gotten away with it, or they might've been punished for it. We. Don't. Know.

 

Not if you take the actual history into account, since that would include the humans killing Siona's sister before Red crossing.

You understand that when Siona's sister died, Orlais and the Dales had been skirmishing for years, yes?

 

Since you keep replying to my point about how, in the present day as of Inquisition, the Chantry has a history of being the religious aggressors by pointing out that they didn't have one before they started the first Exalted March, you do seem to be right about that one thing, even though you're wrong about whom the actual guilty parties are.

 

Even in present day, the Chantry DOESN'T have a history of being aggressors, as I've pointed out multiple times by now. In fact, in the far majority of the times, they seem to have only resorted to violence as an absolute last resort.

 

I did not argue any such thing. As I've pointed out to the other guy at least twice now, when I said the Chantry has a history of doing that I was talking about the history of the Chantry as of the point where Inquisition takes place. So if you want to try replying to an argument I made, could you please reply to one I actually made?

Funny, one could ask you to do the same..

 

This is your EXACT quote:

 

The Dalish don't have the history of being the aggressor in religious warfare  the Chantry has, and the Dalish didn't actively suppress the written records the way the Chantry has done.

Nowhere, do you say that you are speaking about modern times. In fact, you jsut say that the Chantry has a history of violence, and that is about it. I merely pointed out that what you are saying  and you should get your facts straight.

[Boost32]

Yes. Otherwise you would use a word like "incursion". Invasion is a term used when military forces agressively enter a foreign or opposing territory, generally with the objective of conquering, liberating, or regaining control.

Incursion in my language means military invasion against foreign territory.
While invasion means entering a place/territory without the owner/government permission (invasion and trespassing are the same in my language).

Now I see why others users debated about it.

[The Elder King]

The way I see it, Both humans and elves have faults for the tensione that lead to the war. And the deaths of innocent humans and elves at the borders between Orlais and the Dales likely happened several times.
I honestly don't care blaming on side or another, as well As determine which side threw the First stone. The only thing se know for certain is that the elves decided at one point to invade Orlais (and possibly wipe it out, since it'd be foolish to leave a weakened enemy to regroup and later take revenge, and their beliefs would be against living in the same area with humans). As to what triggered this decision, I don't think we have enough data to form a definitive conclusion. We can interpret the info we have in way or another, but there aren't enough info.
A major mistake the elves Made, in my opinion, was remaining neutral during the Blight. Expecially because I find moronic to leave a threat that if it wasn't stopped would've been a threat for them.

[Steelcan]

lets lay this out chronologically

 

-Andraste and her followers bring war to the Imperium, including Shartan leader of the elves following her

-After Andraste's death the elves receive the Dales from Andraste's sons

-There is a period where myriad of teachings and cults about Andraste pop up, the First Inquisition is founded

-Drakon unites Orlais and organizes the Chantry as we know it in Val Royeaux and the Navvaran Accords are signed bringing the first Inquisition into the fold of the Chantry as the Seekers of Truth and the Templar Order and, the Last Inquisitor Ameridan, friend to emperor Drakon goes missing.

-The Second Blight breaks out and Orlais is embroiled in it for almost a full century while the Dalish sit it out, even allowing Montsimard to be sacked by the darkspawn

-Relations between Orlais and the Dales fall apart and border clashes start between the two nations.  The modern Dalish accuse the Chantry of forcibly entering their land and preaching and bringing templars with the missionaries.  The Chantry and Orlais dispute this and instead claim the elves were the aggressors in numerous disputes.  At the same time rumors abound about practices such as human sacrifice in the Dales.

-At some point during this phase Siona's sister is killed for unknown reasons in an unknown context by humans.

-An Emerald Knight defects to Orlais in order to follow the woman he loves and is pursued by his former comrades who fear he may share elven secrets.

-These comrades illegally enter Orlesian territory to bring him back, in the process they are attacked by the civilian populace of Red Crossing whom they slaughter.  The Chantry sister whom the Emerald Knight fell in love with is killed by Siona.  Her elven lover is also killed when discovered near the body by other humans

-The town of Red Crossing is destroyed, either by the emerald knights or the invasion force that enters Orlais very shortly afterwards.

-The elves sack Monstimard and Val Royeaux itself before being driven back by the Orlesians and a Exalted March is called (that only Orlais contributes troops to)

-The elves are forced back across their own borders and are pursued by the Orlesians, Halamshiral is sacked

-The remaining elves are allowed to surrender but refuse, preferring death in battle

-Their wish is granted and the surviving elves are sent to Alienages and converted to Andrastianism

-The elves who escaped the death in battle or being sent to Alienages form the nomadic tribes of the Dalish as we know them

[BioWareMod01]

Hello everyone. Let's keep it civil so the thread can remain open. Thank you.

[Heimdall]

Slight correction, Steelcan, Ameridan didn't disappear until after the Second Blight broke out.  That's why Drakon asked Ameridan to take care of it rather than addressing it himself.