807 réponses à ce sujet

[Jedi Master of Orion]

The text just doesn't support the conclusion you're drawing with regard to the elven entries (Dales or CE) as they compress the entire timeline. The Exalted March Codex is from DA:I, and the full text of your passage says the following: 

 

"Scholars point to the massacre at Red Crossing as the impetus for the Chantry's declaration of an Exalted March on the elven kingdom in the Dales. They conveniently ignore the fact that no one alive truly knows what happened at Red Crossing or why the elves attacked. The Chantry's response to the elven aggression that resulted in the slaughter of hundreds was predictable. But in light of my thesis, perhaps we should reexamine the events of Red Crossing and wonder if the attack was truly unprovoked. Or whether it is possible that someone saw benefit in sacrificing an entire village to justify the subjugation of an entire people."

 

The timeline for that article is also important: "From A New Perspective on the Exalted March, a pamphlet by an anonymous author, published by the University of Orlais in 9:12 Dragon".

 

There's a real question whether this author is as aware of the history as he or she purports to be in the entry. Consider the thesis of the entry as well:

 

"The Chantry's story of the Exalted March of the Dales paints the picture of the righteous faithful arrayed against heathen savages. But I have long studied the Dales, and I find the "acceptable" version of the tale to be a poor one, laden with overt pro-Chantry and pro-human biases. Thus it is my moral imperative to propose an alternative interpretation: that the Exalted March of the Dales was nothing more than an expansionist ploy hiding behind the mask of faith."

 

I would not say that the author is neutral per se (describing the work as a "moral imperative") which is at odds with the (already written) fact that there was an invasion of Orlais. I don't think we're meant to uncritically accept the entry.

 

Moving on to the two elven entries. The Dales entry (from the Dalish POV) says: 

 

"But it was not to last. The Chantry first sent missionaries into the Dales, and then, when those were thrown out, templars. We were driven from Halamshiral, scattered. Some took refuge in the cities of the shemlen, living in squalor, tolerated only a little better than vermin."

This is just misleading. And we know it is false because it doesn't even acknowledge Red Crossing. 

 

Sister Petrine in that entry also has a pretty biased account, but from the opposite direction: 

 

"But the old era wasn't through with them. In their forest city, the elves turned again to worship their silent, ancient gods. They became increasingly isolationist, posting Emerald Knights who guarded their borders with jealousy, rebuking all efforts at trade or civilized discourse. Dark rumors spread in the lands that bordered the Dales, whispers of humans captured and sacrificed to elven gods. And then came an attack by the elves on the defenseless village of Red Crossing. The Chantry replied with the Exalted March of the Dales, and the era of the elven kingdom came to an end. Halamshiral was utterly destroyed, the elves driven out, scattered, left to survive on goodwill alone."

 

This says that the Chantry was the agent of the Dales conquest, not Orlais. 

 

The City Elf entry is similarly vague: 

 

"There, in the Dales, our people revived the lost lore as best we could. We called the first city Halamshiral, "end of the journey," and founded a new nation, isolated as elves were meant to be, this time patrolled by an order of Emerald Knights charged with watching the borders for trouble from humans. But you already know that something went wrong. A small elven raiding party attacked the nearby human village of Red Crossing, an act of anger that prompted the Chantry to retaliate and, with their superior numbers, conquer the Dales."

 

Once again, there is a serious compression of the timeline. This entry doesn't even call it an Exalted March, just a "retaliation". Contrast it with the non-elf entry in the same codex:

 

"When the holy Exalted March of the Dales resulted in the dissolution of the elven kingdom, leaving a great many elves homeless once again, the Divine Renata I declared that all lands loyal to the Chantry must give the elves refuge within their own walls. Considering the atrocities committed by the elves at Red Crossing, this was a great testament to the Chantry's charity. There was one condition, however--the elves were to lay aside their pagan gods and live under the rule of the Chantry."

 

This doesn't say Red Crossing is the impetus for the march - but it is what they classify as the wrong. 

 

All codex entries are written with some degree of bias, but whether the conclusion that author ultimately draws about the war is correct or not, isn't the point. Because the part where he names Red Crossing as the impetus is the part where he's just establishing what the "acceptable version" of the story is, so that he can fulfill his "moral imperative" to deconstruct it. He's saying what everyone else says about the subject.

 

Second, the Chantry was the agent of conquest of the Dales. This is not mutually exclusive with Orlais being the agent of conquering the Dales. In fact, since the Dales was conquered in an Exalted March that the Chantry called and Orlais alone was the single nation to participate, both would have to be responsible. The Chantry might not always be synonymous with Orlais in everything, but in this particular regard they would have to be.

 

I don't think the compression of the timeline is that important here because both Sister Petrine and Hahren Sarathia mention the Chantry's conquest of the Dales as being in direct response to the incident at Red Crossing. The City Elf Hahren may not name it an "Exalted March" but does describe the response as exactly what an an Exalted March would be.

[Steelcan]

 

I don't think the compression of the timeline is that important here because both Sister Petrine and Hahren Sarathia mention the Chantry's conquest of the Dales as being in direct response to the incident at Red Crossing. The City Elf Hahren may not name it an "Exalted March" but does describe the response as exactly what an an Exalted March would be.

Yes it was the direct response in the same way Hannibal crossing the Alps was the direct response of the outbreak of the Second Punic War, there's still a few steps in between

[In Exile]

All codex entries are written with some degree of bias, but whether the conclusion that author ultimately draws about the war is correct or not, isn't the point. Because the part where he names Red Crossing as the impetus is the part where he's just establishing what the "acceptable version" of the story is, so that he can fulfill his "moral imperative" to deconstruct it. He's saying what everyone else says about the subject.

 

Second, the Chantry was the agent of conquest of the Dales. This is not mutually exclusive with Orlais being the agent of conquering the Dales. In fact, since the Dales was conquered in an Exalted March that the Chantry called and Orlais alone was the single nation to participate, both would have to be responsible. The Chantry might not always be synonymous with Orlais in everything, but in this particular regard they would have to be.

 

I don't think the compression of the timeline is that important here because both Sister Petrine and Hahren Sarathia mention the Chantry's conquest of the Dales as being in direct response to the incident at Red Crossing. The City Elf Hahren may not name it an "Exalted March" but does describe the response as exactly what an an Exalted March would be.

 

I'll address your points in reverse:

 

1. The compression is essential. "The Treaty of Versailles was the impetus behind WW2" is a generally accepted statement that's also so reductionist to be meaningless and ignores a confluence of factors, including the existence of the Great Depression in Europe. Or, to put it differently, it would be akin to saying that the nuking of Hiroshima was a "direct response" to Pearl Harbour. 

 

2. There's a very real argument as to how involved the Chantry was in the conquest of the Dales. The very first article that you cite - the one about the alternative perspective - casts Orlais as the expansionist villain. The Chantry as the active agent behind the collapse of Orlais is quite a different narrative from the imperialistic Orlesians. There's just no way to take the Chantry as equivalent to Orlais - there's no possible overlap between the two of them beyond a possibility of racism and cultural imperialism. 

 

3. This isn't about an article just being biased. It's an article of the same quality as the Dalish DA:O entry about Orlais, which - to call it inaccurate - would be an understatement. And - more importantly - we know it's wrong. Even if it's right in what "most scholars" believe, it's actually wrong as a matter of fact when it comes to the WOT timeline, which is WOG at this point (i.e., when this was written). I'm convinced we can put any more stock in this codex than we can in the original DA:O Dalish codex, which doesn't even acknowledge Red Crossing existed. 

[Jedi Master of Orion]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that what the timeline says in WoT didn't happen. I'm arguing about what wording of the earlier codex entries say, especially since most of them are from a time before the games mentioned the fall of Montsimmard of Val Royeaux being threatened. 

[EmperorSahlertz]

To be clear, I'm not arguing that what the timeline says in WoT didn't happen. I'm arguing about what wording of the earlier codex entries say, especially since most of them are from a time before the games mentioned the fall of Montsimmard of Val Royeaux being threatened. 

We always knew that the Elves sacked Montsimmard. It was mentioned in the original game guide. The only thing that was in question was wether or not Val Royaux ever fell, since there were conflicting sources on that. However, that is no longer the case.

[Bowie Hawkins]

Because everyone in those two cities didn't die? 

 

What's the source for everyone in Red Crossing dying? I found a source (http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Orlais) that says that Red Crossing was occupied, rather than that all the people were killed: "In 2:9 Glory the elves attacked the Orlesian town of Red Crossing and quickly took it over."

[Jedi Master of Orion]

We always knew that the Elves sacked Montsimmard. It was mentioned in the original game guide. The only thing that was in question was wether or not Val Royaux ever fell, since there were conflicting sources on that. However, that is no longer the case.

 

As sources go, I think the original game guide is fairly on the obscure side. I doubt a lot of players had any access to it, so the in game codex is all the have to rely on. Back in the day we only had what was transcribed from it into the Dragon Age wiki to go by. And as the Fiona thread proves, there's debate about whether everything in them is right anyway. Not everything from that book's timeline made it into World of Thedas.

[EmperorSahlertz]

As sources go, I think the original game guide is fairly on the obscure side. I doubt a lot of players had any access to it, so the in game codex is all the have to rely on. Back in the day we only had what was transcribed from it into the Dragon Age wiki to go by. And as the Fiona thread proves, there's debate about whether everything in them is right anyway. Not everything from that book's timeline made it into World of Thedas.

Indeed they were obscure, but it doesn't change the fact that it was lore of the game. Just like the first novels are also considered lore, despite their obscurity. It was out there, for the more fanatic lore consumer to find and read.