My response as historian to the above post. Military might does not mean the survival of a race, culture, or nation.
Ireland was in no way peaceful before the English came in - it was composed of warring clans nominally ruled by a royal family and Ireland defended itself well against the British for thousands of years.. In fact the Celtics/Gaels controlled the majority of the British Isles for longer than the English (none of whom are actual natives to to British Isles, they are descended from the Teutonic- read German Saxon tribe, the French, and the Romans). Yes the Irish had culture but they also had soldiers and they never stopped fighting- they merely went from open battlefields to guerilla warfare and playing "the Game" with British diplomats to get what they wanted. Ireland is currently Northern Ireland ruled by the British and still fighting them and the Republic of Ireland which has had self rule for almost 100 years. I don't think England really won that one.
Egypt was taken over several times- Greece (Cleopatra was a Greek not an Egyptian ruler as was her entire family), Rome, the Ottoman Empire etc. Persia ruled the world militarily for thousands of years (have you read the Bible?) and the two main nations that comprised Persia, Iran and Iraq now partially control a major segment of the international economy- oil. Again Egypt did not really win-they spent two millenia being oppressed by other nations and are are now a really minor player on the international military and political scene.
The indigenous peoples of North, South, and Central America, as well as the indigenous peoples of the South Sea Islands and Australia were in no way all peaceful- tree huggers as people seem to think. The Aztecs, Mayans, and Incans warred against all of the other tribes in the area, were very expansionist, and sacrificed human beings as part of their religion, slavery was an accepted part of many indigenous cultures- these are not things that denote nations that are peaceful- or focused on culture and these three indigenous empires were the first to fall to Spanish colonists. While there may have been some Native peoples focused on culture and peace- the main Indigenous empires of the Americas were not. Also England, Spain, and France did not defeat the indigenous peoples by military might-they defeated them by playing what Orlesians call "The Game" false treaties, promises to allow indigenous peoples to keep their lands, taking indigenous leaders hostage, or assassinating them, and biological warfare (smallpox blankets anyone) were the most common weapons, In fact in terms of men on the field with weapons the indigenous peoples of the Americas outnumbered the Europeans more than 10:1. When Cortes defeated the Aztec emperor Montezuma he had less than 500 men compared to Montezuma's several thousand man strong military that had been taking over other indigenous nations for centuries.
The Song were no less warlike than the Mongols - the Northern Song were involved in 3 major wars excluding their war with the Mongols- just because they did not win does not mean they were any less militarily expansionist than the Mongols.
As per being a nation like the USA- you note- we may have expanded in terms of military power but pretty much everyone in the world hates the US- at least in relation to our political/military approach to other nations. Thus many of those examples don't really hold their weight in a solid argument
The same is also true of Orlais- prior to Celene the country was exceedingly warlike and expansionist- they ruled Fereldan until around the time Celene was born- when the Rebellion against Orlais by Fereldans wanting self rule led by Maric and Loghain started. They have constantly tried to take over Antiva, Navarra, and Rivain- and have been fighting Tevinter for around 1000 years- they are no less warlike and expansionist because Celene sits on the throne than they are with Gaspard. Celene's focus on culture and education does not mean Orlais is not going to survive as a nation- nations can have both culture and be militarily expansionist- that is why England once ruled most of the world at one point- as did Rome.
Ultimately a nation must balance their desire to expand via military might with culture, and peace- the military is meant to enforce peace not to take over other nations. Note many of the nations where it is claimed they "won" via military might really did not- because eventually and inevitably someone comes along with more firepower, more soldiers, and a more united people than yours.
Whether one is war-mongering or peaceful ultimately has little to do with whether a culture or nation rises or falls- in fact- war mongering inevitably causes all the other nations to rise against you and put you down HARD- (Germany and Japan in World War II, the Ottoman Empire and their Allies in World War I). Cultures and nations rise and fall for several reasons such as, famine, the land being stripped of resources, natural disasters, war, and failure of the government. If one looks at Theodosian history- this has happened several times including the ancient Elvhen, and Dwarven empires and Tevinter (used to rule the world now a minor nation clinging to the past but without the military might to reclaim it).
If Orlais falls it is because several of those things are currently going on in Orlais- famine, land being stripped of resources, because the ridiculous Civil War for which both Celene and Gaspard are to blame- has destroyed most of the Dales- which is where most of their farmland is- at least according to what have seen of Orlais so far, failure of government is also occurring because the government and military are torn right down the middle between supporters of Celene vs. supporters of Gaspard even after you support/execute one or the other-just because Gaspard or Celene dies doesn't mean their supporters stop believing in whatever cause or excuse they used to start the Civil War to begin with anymore than the Civil War in the US has ever truly been resolved (we still have the North vs South thing going on), and natural disasters because of the Rifts, the effects of the 1st-4th Blights on Orlais that rendered about 1/2 the country (Western Approach, Hissing Wastes, Hidden Oasis) unliveable, and war because of both the Mage-Templar war (effected the region the White Spire is in almost as badly as the Hinterlands), and the Civil War.
Orlais is going to fall it is just a matter of getting a leader in there who can hold it together as long as possible before Navarra, Antiva, and Fereldan start taking it to pieces. In my case I chose Celene- leaders who choose diplomacy- and who focus on domestic policy rather than a militarily expansionist foreign policy are less likely to end up dead by either being killed by their own people or assassins of foreign governments. Given Gaspards approach to the game- and hence diplomacy and foreign relations- it is likely that in a Gaspard alone, or Gaspard/Briala combo - we will end up with a dead Gaspard.
Retour en haut
Orlais doesn't seem to fit in Thedas. What I mean by the latter is compare The Stolen Throne with The Masked Empire. The Stolen Throne characters aren't very complicated and there is a clear cut "good versus evil" storyline whereas in The Masked Empire you have characters that while aren't EVIL, neither would I say that they were GOOD.
