Analysis and implications of your own? Oh, you mean baseless speculation.
It would be baseless if I didn't point out the many elements I used as a basis.
Analysis is the art of taking facts and knowledge and combining them into information and knowledge. It's what you do every time you take two non-explicitly linked points and make a conclusion from them- it's not magic, and even if people can disagree on the conclusions it's not irrational or somehow illegitimate. It's how anyone comes to any understanding of anything.
That is incorrect. As another commenter pointed out, by the end of Asunder, the Mages have a stronghold in Andoral's Reach in Orlais. I'm sure if the thousands of Mages said to be defending there had lost we would have heard about it. It is after the conflict at that location that the Templars realized the Mages would not back down.
I do not recall any mention in Dragon Age Inquisition of thousands of mages maintaining a stronghold in Andoral's Reach at the point of the Conclave and Inquisition. In fact, the only mentions I can find of it at all via google and DA wiki searching are related to Asunder- that Andoral's Reach was likely to be an early battle of the war.
But that makes it old news, years out of date. What the mages intended to do or how much resolve they intended to show at the start of the war is irrelevant to their standing at the end. It's not particularly relevant to the context of the game (which focuses on the Mage-Templar situation immediately post-Conclave and places it in the Hinterlands), it's not any more critical to understanding the end-point of the rebellion than the rest of the multi-year rebellion, and the fact that the Mages had a stronghold doesn't inherently or even implicitly contradict later developments and Mage's own leader (the best authority figure on the Mage Rebellion's standing since, you know, she's running it) depiction of the conflict. Win, lose, whatever the initial outcome of Andoral's reach, it doesn't matter if three-odd years later they've since abandoned it..
I am always happy to revise my conclusions in the face of new evidence, but you're the first I can recall to suggest that Andoral's Reach is somehow still active when DAI says that the remaining rebel mages have sought refuge in Redcliffe. Do you have a base to support this speculation?
Do you have a source, any source, that indicates the Mages actively control Andoral's Reach?
There are Circle Towers all over Thedas, this is a multinational event and all of those Mages did not go to Redcliffe but the leadership. We know NOTHING about the conflicts and situations at a majority of the other Circle Towers and nations regarding this conflict. What we see is what happens with the leadership at Redcliffe.
We know a fair deal of the general trends of the Mage Rebellion, thanks to Asunder setting the context of the start and Inquisition's various party members and war table missions and Fiona's own asssessment of the mage standing towards the end.
We know practically all the Circles rose up in rebellion, to the point that those that didn't were notable as exceptional minorities (Vivienne's loyalists, the Circle(s) that declared neutrality and sat the conflict out). We know that the Templars conducted initial attacks on the Circles they could at the start of the conflict (source- Asunder), and we know that by the point of Inquisition there are absolutely no mentions of any Circle under siege by the Templars because every Circle that does get mentioned is in the context of (a) having been sacked, ( 
having not rebelled, or © having been abandoned, including the nice big easily defensible Ferelden Circle on an easily defensible island right across the lake that the greatest known concentration of magi of Southern Thedas is living in the greatest fishing village with port infrastructure to support it if they wanted to. This links to Vivienne's personal quest, in which we know that Circles that rose in rebellion were afterwards looted by scavengers, a strong implication that there weren't exactly mage forces present to keep mundanes from stealing their ****, which fits in with the various mentions we know of that the rebel mages fled the Circles. We know that in the opening days of the rebellion there was an internal mage purge of the insufficiently revolutionary before said Circles were abandoned, to the point that the surviving non-rebel mages are established to either fought off the rebels and declared loyalty/neutrality (Vivienne/that neutral Circle), or ran away and went to ground (deny them as an army in the field). We know that the mage leader believed the mages were losing, believed it strongly enough that the prospect of a Templar assault on a formidable and friendly fortress (well-equipped to withstand a siege and await overwhelming reinforcements) was considered grounds to abandon the a war of freedom and independence and seek the relative sanctuary of Tevinter. We know this came at a time where we know the Templars already had active strongholds and had already secured major key terrains and Circle towers across the continent, know that the Templars were consolidated because recall orders were sent to gather as many Templars as possible back at White Spire and that Envy then ordered them to completely abandon the garrisons they did have (including White Spire) to relocate to Therinfell. We know that no such mage equivalent consolidation ever took or takes place if/when we ally with the Mage Rebellion, just as we know that the mage-route war table mentions make mentions of previously hiding Circle mages coming out in light of the alliance but we see nothing about any sort of mage army or major force elsewhere. (Which is, admittedly, an absence of evidence and not evidence of absence, but this is relevant because it corroborates many various points actively established when it would have easily been able to counter them if it were reversed.)
We know that all the advisors in Inquisition and all the party members and all the political actors treat the Circle Mages as a consolidated organizational unit that can only be contacted at one location (Redcliffe), which is repeatedly claimed to be where the Mage Rebellion is without any in-game qualifer that it's just their leadership (and where in-game evidence explicitly establishes that there's more to there- that there's the children and weak mages and tranquil and so on).
We also know, if we think about it with just a little of that 'baseless speculation' I call analysis, that if there were other major mage garrisons across Thedas then we could have had another means to resolve the whole 'mage or templar' choice because we could have just asked them for help.
We know that Fiona couldn't have forced them into long-distance slavery to Alexius just because she agreed to sell the Redcliffe mages into slavery, because she couldn't even enforce organization discipline on the rampaging mage supremacists right outside her gates. We know that the Templars wouldn't be currently sieging Andoral's Reach in-mass or blocking us because we know Envy issued the recall and relocation orders to all the Templars he could as he tried to make them into Red Templars. We can safely assume that if there was an amazing success story of thousands of brave mages who had fought off Templars for years in a struggle that would have been common knowledge for diplomats like Josephine let alone spy masters like we know Leliana to be.
We know by this point the Inquisition has already demonstrated the ability to move to the capital of Orlais itself and send agents across much of Southern Thedas.
Which would be a really, really obvious solution to 'how can we recruit mages to fix the Breach' if the Inquisition could send agents to some notorious bastion of thousands of mages who had held out for years, and kindly point out not only is the world falling apart but also that pretty much all the Templars in Southern Thedas are holed up and hiding on the far end of the continent, and ask if they maybe could pretty please loan maybe a dozen or two mages from those hundreds of veteran combat mages to help close the hole in the sky?
I think, and this is just me, that's there's enough basis floating around to believe that the reason that didn't happen is because it couldn't have happened, and that the most credible reason for that is because there wasn't a major public mage holdout just standing around all confused and unopposed when the Templars followed orders and regrouped the Therinfall.
Probably why, when the world was at stake, we felt we had to make a deal with a Tevinter slave-master instead to try and borrow some mages.
.
The Templars in the Hinterlands were detractors, killing Apostates and innocents as they saw fit. They were no longer part of the whole
That's rather the point. The ones remaining were defectors who refused orders- which indicates there were a whole lot more Templars, there and elsewhere, who did follow orders.
The Circles of Kirkwall and Dairsmuid were Annuled BEFORE the dissolution of the Circles.
Which makes them locations that are impossible for the Rebel Mages to call power centers. Since the would-be rebel mages are already, you know, dead and scattered. Even without Templar undue influence and power base in Kirkwall, those are two areas we can safely assume are NOT mage bastions in the current day mage rebellion, because those bastions were overrun at the start.
You could argue that the surviving mages might have tried to wage a guerilla war, taking refuge amongst sympathetic locals (more likely in Dairsmuid than Kirkwall), but that would be conceeding my overall point to me. Guerilla warfare is what the people who can't meet you in the open field do. It is an entirely legitimate strategy, but it is also a concession of military weakness.
Before the major conflict started. The Mages also won the conflict at the White Spire, slaughtering most of the Templars and destroying the Phylacteries in the process before leaving.
-snip-
And yet they left- not keeping it as a bastion. And we know, thanks to DAI, that the Templars had since reclaimed it. Otherwise Envy couldn't have recalled all Templars to it and then abandoned it himself.
Yes, those two Circles fell. Well before open conflict. I didn't expect them to win. The Templars are trained just for that not to mention that the mages, utterly trapped inside the tower have no escape, no supplies and cannot expect outside help unlike the Templars. The Towers are designed to keep Mages in and when the Templars so choose: a death trap. Even still with all of those advantages the Templars suffered heavy losses and in Kirkwall many Mages escape. The Annulment of these two Towers have no more bearing on the conflict in Inquisition than an Annulment 100 years ago.
You're right that the victories before the major conflict started are of limited relevance- you're missing that the relevance hurts the mages state at the end of the war far more than it hurts the Templars. Templar annullments before the conflict are not irrelevant because they set the local theatre context. They are the most decisive possible events in their areas- if the mages could have held out in their own stronghold, and prisons are actually surprisingly defensible positions, they wouldn't have been annulled, and after being annulled the mages are dead. Dead mages can't come back later to form an army or hold garrisons. Any area the Templars successfully annulled is a local 'victory' for them in the course of the Mage-Templar War itself because, by definition, they've already killed everyone who didn't submit or escape.
The only way that the rebel mages who escape can count as a serious threat afterwards is if the victorious Templars leave in such numbers to other fronts that the local Templars have trouble handling the rest, or if other Mages come from outside to reinforce and re-constitute. But that's actualy an indication of Templar strength- the Templars can choose to weaken themselves in what is now a low-priority theater and afford to move newly available forces to other fronts. They can have an advantage in the war by weakening themselves locally. But Mages coming from outside are mages who aren't making strongholds elsewhere, and because we know from Fiona that the Mages were losing the war it's more likely that such 'reinforcements' are fleeing their own general defeats than coming to establish a new theater.
On the other hand, mage strength and morale and any victories at the start of the conflict are largely irrelevant to their standing at the end. Mage victory depends on their state and holdings at the end of the conflict (when the mage collective is located in Redcliffe and dependent on outside patrons for protection, be it Ferelden or Tevinter), not the beginning (when there may well have been thousands at at somewhere other than Redcliffe). The current generation of mages can lose at any point along the way if they get wiped out, and by the end their survival is so insecure that the Mage collective agrees to follow Fiona into explicit slavery and expected exile from Southern Thedas rather than laugh at her and throw her out of power.
That is not indicative of a strong, peer rival to the Templars.
The Templars and Seekers made it clear that their goal was to purge the Mages after they would not submit. This is why they left the Chantry; to deal with the Mages as they saw fit. Only after they realized that they couldn't did they agree to the Conclave.
And by the time of Inquisition, the biggest reasons we can point to that the Templars can't purge the remaining mages is that they've either (a) fled and gone to ground hiding, or ( under the protection of Ferelden.
I fully agree that the Templars can't purge or force the remaining rebel mages to submit. I disagree that it's because of the mage's own strength, rather than the mage's getting external support.
But by the time of Inquisition at the end of the war, the biggest reasons we can point to that the Templars can't purge the remaining mages is because the mages have either (a) fled and wentto ground hiding, which is what the Mage Rebellion ultimately does if Fiona leads them into joining the Venatori conspiracy network, or ( behind the national walls of a country like Ferelden, who could beat the Templars in a fight if the Templars started one.
Again, Redcliffe was not the Mages only holdout. There were other areas all over Thedas in which the Templars failed to advance.
*Citation needed.
No, really- despite the snark, I would be happy to see citations of end-war mage holdouts all over Thedas to make me re-consider my assessment. I'm a lore junky, and I honestly can't remember reading of any on my mage playthrough. I just have no such awareness of any, and know of many points suggesting against it. But we're not going to play the 'just one counter-example disproves the entire thing and makes you right'- you'll get as much re-consideration as is warranted by the evidence you provide. I've provided my supporting data points to argue from- it's your turn to do the same.
What is your support that the mages were viable on multiple fronts across Thedas? Which fronts, where, dispute FIona's contention that the Mages are losing the war, and why can't these fronts be contacted when the Templars reconsolidate in Therinfall after the Conclave?
I don't understand your logic. You can't be not winning and winning at the same time.
Sure you can. It's one of the defining frustrations of insurgency warfare- conventional victory in the field does not always translate into political victory.
The Templars have the unfortunate objective of needing a political victory to achieve their war aims. Killing all the rebel mages in Southern Thedas doesn't end the mage problem. Even if they did conduct a total genocide (which they weren't aiming for- the war was not over or cast as a 'let's Annul everyone, right now'), the more mages will be born in the future.
Templar victory comes with the re-establishment of the Circles with acceptable oversight (which means oversight by Templars).
If the Templars no longer exist, that's a problem and they lose- they can't enforce the Circles, or even train replacement Templars. So a Templar conventional defeat and getting killed off is a pretty big deal to them. But it's not the same for the mages- more mages will be born regardless, because mages are a biology and not a polity. Templars are a polity, and it's all but impossible to resurrect a polity if it's killed.
But conventional defeat to the Mages isn't the only way the Templars could cease to be. The Templars could also be defeated by another military power- like the country of Ferelden, which would have both reason and ability to do so if the Templars sacked a major Ferelden settlement to kill a bunch of rebel mages. Which, again, wouldn't actually win them the war even if those mages were the last Rebel Mages in Southern Thedas, because 'victory' depends on what comes after the current rebellion is suppressed.
If the Templars attack Redcliffe but are wiped out in the counter-attack, they lose. And if the Templars ignore the peace appeals of the highest moral authority in Southern Thedas and massacre a bunch of (mundane and magical) good Andrastians even as the Mages appear to be playing reasonable... well, there's a high chance they'd lose the public support and tolerance they have, be unable to support themselves in the long-term even if they escaped Ferelden's wrath, and then they'd still lose. Again. And, really, the Templars are kind of going to need the Chantry in the long-term if they're going to re-set up the Circles, since the Chantry is what makes it all run smoother across the countries. The Templars have had enough legitimacy and public/private support to keep up a war for a few years, sort of like how the Inquisition manages, but that's not a long-term reliable solution. Without which, they'd lose. Still again.
No matter how much the Templars win in the field, they're pretty close to losing if they disregard politics. And that's a big advantage for the Mages. For the Templars to win, the mages need to accept that they've lost. If they're stubborn enough to hang on until the Templars screw up, then it's the Mages' win.
So for the Templars to win, they really need something like the Conclave anyway- something that's big and pretty and in which the Mages effectively surrender and return to the Circles. Since the alternative to the Mages returning to the Circle is the Mages not returning to the Circles, which amounts to the Templars losing, a little compromise is perfectly reasonable for the overall victory- as long as it's on terms acceptable to the Templars. The biggest two, I'd expect, being the replacement of the Divine they don't trust and feel betrayed by, and the end of the Chantry's indulgence/tolerance of the nakedly separatist Libertarian fraternity that led the revolt. The first could be won in the field if they killed the mages, but the second is almost entirely a political concession to be wrested in negotiations. How much is peace worth to Justinia- enough to 'retire' and let a pro-Templar Divine replace her?
Now, this isn't to say the outcome of the battles isn't important. It is. If the the mages are able to stay in the field because they can't be defeated, then they have far less reason to come to the table or make any concessions. Until a national authority decided to force them, they could keep all the freedom and independence they'd successfully gotten as long as they wanted. The Rebel Mages don't need a conventional victory to keep a hold of their independence- they just need to not lose. Even if they're at a stalemate, the fact that they are entirely autonomous and self-supporting makes it their win for as long as they keep it that way.
Sure, there are reasons they would want a peace deal- war weariness, or exasperating the political tolerance of the kingdoms they're holing up in. But these are relatively minor things, and not worth making huge concessions that would invalidate the international crisis they were willing to start in the first place. For the freedom fighters and instigators who are the energy behind the rebellion, the point of any peace deal is to preserve their victory. But if that was the case, then the pro-Independence faction would be at its height, not its lowest- they wouldn't leave their own champion and acknowledged leader behind.
In fact, in this context the biggest reason the Mages would have to go along with the Conclave is if their nest egg of the future generation was at risk. If their rear elements, their children and wounded and weak and their Tranquil, if all of them were at a risk the Mages couldn't stalemate if they weren't being protected by the walls of Redcliffe. That's a reason to go along and listen to the peace talks, if only to show a good face.
In this context, Ferelden is silently blackmailing the Mages by holding their refugees hostage. Which, I think we can all agree, would be rather out of character for both Alistair (who is good and sympathetic to the mages) and Anora (who may not be, but who likely wouldn't risk her own towns being turned into warzones if the Mages don't play ball).
On the other hand... if the mages aren't doing so well on the field, then negotiations take a different tone. It really is about survival or submission. If the Templars are frightening enough that the Mages don't think they could survive in the field, then they'll need an outside supporter to protect them- someone with the power and credibility and legitimacy to stand on their behalf. Someone like, say, the Kingdom of Ferelden offering refuge.
Now, security patrons don't work for free. If you want people to fight and protect you, you have to give them a reason to want to. That may mean compromises you would prefer not to- like, say, slavery and exile to an oppressive and exploitative mageocracy that devours even its own mages. Or, since this is Ferelden we're talking about and not yet Tevinter, listening to them when they say that you should really look at stopping the fighting that you're already losing. That if you don't, then they won't let you hide behind their walls and instead you'll be out in the field and with those mean, scarry Templars, but if you do then they'll make sure that things aren't so bad.
In this case, leaving your own leader and figure of the independence movement behind when you go to negotiations make a good deal more sense. Because you're already compromising to gain a security patron, the question of 'submission or extinction' has already been answered: the question is on what terms do the mages have oversight? The worse the mages have handled themselves off the field, the less leverage they'll have to resist. The worse the mages have handled themselves on the field, the less ability they'll have to resist- they'll be more dependent on the security patron, make more compromises to ensure their survival, and go along with worse terms.
In this context, Ferelden is the security patron that's bringing the Mages to the table in exchange for protecting them. This, I think most people can agree, would be far more in character for Alistair and Anora. Yes, it is the Chantry that's the face of the negotiations- but that's not surprising or a disproof. The Ferelden Monarchy, despite the assertions of some pro-mage Alistair fans, are on good terms with the Chantry despite disagreements on specifics. And the Mage-Templar issue is an international issue, not just a Ferelden issue, and de-nationalizing it and working through the Chantry is one of the defining hallmarks of the international Circle system. Ferelden's role may be quiet, but it would be expected to be.
This would also be quite in character with the mage rebellion we've seen as identified with Fiona. People hate it, but even arch-independence advocate Fiona went along with far worse when the Templars were decapitated and disorganized and the Chantry was so divided it couldn't even muster a voice to ostracize the Inquisitor, let alone publicly blame the Mages. Obviously Fiona herself isn't doing the negotiation, but Fiona's second greatest tendency as a leader after advocating independence is to be suspectable to pressure, direct and indirect. The fact that the first isn't feasible if the war is going badly is a reason why her fellow mages would have left her behind- the second is why even a benevolent security patron could have pushed her to agree to peace talks in the first place.
Simple enough?
Retour en haut
