Hydaelyn Role-Players

[[Mod note:]] Split from: http://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/showthread.php?tid=12454

Following up on the coattails of Sounsyy's post, I'll throw in that the razing of Doma as retribution for rebellion was prompted by the war of succession in Garlemald. At the end of 1.0, the old emperor is alive and in control still, and the cutscene of the new emperor standing over the open casket of the former one was from a 2.x story (don't remember which, exactly) means the razing of Doma was a very recent thing, as in most likely within the past year.

Um, I'm really confused about this matter. What does being under Garlean control entail?

I haven't done it myself, but I've heard about another quest that talks about a certain noble Au Ra. I'll place it under a cut just in case.

When the British controlled India, Hinduism and Islam continued to exist, as did the general cultural framework. The same could apply to Garlean rule of Othard; it is neither all-consuming nor necessarily homogenizing. 

Also, the fact that the Au Ra suffered extreme discrimination upon coming to Eorzea makes me pleased that SE aren't being weak-fisted about it. Doesn't seem even the Ala Mhigans received as much trouble (which might be rationalized as 'Oh, well, they're fellow Eorzeans').

(07-07-2015, 07:35 AM)Seriphyn Wrote: [ -> ]Also, the fact that the Au Ra suffered extreme discrimination upon coming to Eorzea makes me pleased that SE aren't being weak-fisted about it. Doesn't seem even the Ala Mhigans received as much trouble (which might be rationalized as 'Oh, well, they're fellow Eorzeans').

Same! I remember reading that "Au Ra won't be pursued" a while ago, and it made me very disappointed. Not only because it made no sense, but also because it was denying very interesting RP possibilities. I decided to still do things my way with my Xaela, but I'm glad to see that the lore actually acknowles that yes, Au Ra might have been pursued.

As for Raen, I guess I'll simply avoid mentioning much about Imperials when I RP mine. They are allowed to keep their culture, and therefore a huge degree of their freedom. That's what matters, I guess.

While off-topic to the OP, it's on topic to the current conversation.

A nation that accepts Garlemald's rule is allowed much more freedom than one that actively fights them. We've seen that Garlemald basically wants to "unify" everything under one government (theirs). The bloody war that brought down Ala Mhigo? Internal issues. The people seemed happy to accept Garlean rule at the time, if I'm remembering lore correctly.

(07-07-2015, 06:39 AM)Clover Wrote: [ -> ]Um, I'm really confused about this matter. What does being under Garlean control entail?

Other than being considered an Imperial Territory, it doesn't seem to necessarily entail much. What Garlemald does is conquer an area, form, if possible, a peaceful treaty with its conquered people, and like the Roman Empire, assimilates them into their society. Worship of pagan deities or "Eikons" is outlawed, but other than that, Garlemald doesn't seem to care or have the manpower to do much else. In one of the MSQ, I believe it was even expressed that in some cases Garlemald will leave conquered nation's governments intact and allow them to continue to run things. Hence why Doma's council existed up until the city-state got razed.

This also explains how, despite the Far East being under Imperial rule for the last 30-40 years, why Eorzean city-states like Ul'dah and Limsa still have open trade lines with these places and why Far Eastern merchants such as the Uma Bugyo and Yamimi Farwalker and a plethora of other examples were able to freely come and go to Eorzean soil. Things in Othard are likely "business as usual" except there's Garlean soldiers on every street corner instead of Doman city-guards or whatever. So long as no one outwardly resists, Garlemald won't put its foot down.

The issue of Gaius van Baelsar becoming the ruler of Ala Mhigo is likely only due to the fact that prior to Garlean occupation, Ala Mhigo had rioted against their king, forced him to kill himself, and then were a nation divided by the left-over pieces of the King of Ruin's... ruin. The Garlean rule was a stabilizing force for the city-state, even though, under Gaius and Nael van Darnus's rule the city-state became a hellhole to live in, being the frontlines in the Eorzea occupation.

(07-07-2015, 10:52 AM)Sounsyy Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2015, 06:39 AM)Clover Wrote: [ -> ]Um, I'm really confused about this matter. What does being under Garlean control entail?

Other than being considered an Imperial Territory, it doesn't seem to necessarily entail much. What Garlemald does is conquer an area, form, if possible, a peaceful treaty with its conquered people, and like the Roman Empire, assimilates them into their society. Worship of pagan deities or "Eikons" is outlawed, but other than that, Garlemald doesn't seem to care or have the manpower to do much else. In one of the MSQ, I believe it was even expressed that in some cases Garlemald will leave conquered nation's governments intact and allow them to continue to run things. Hence why Doma's council existed up until the city-state got razed.

This also explains how, despite the Far East being under Imperial rule for the last 30-40 years, why Eorzean city-states like Ul'dah and Limsa still have open trade lines with these places and why Far Eastern merchants such as the Uma Bugyo and Yamimi Farwalker and a plethora of other examples were able to freely come and go to Eorzean soil. Things in Othard are likely "business as usual" except there's Garlean soldiers on every street corner instead of Doman city-guards or whatever. So long as no one outwardly resists, Garlemald won't put its foot down.

The issue of Gaius van Baelsar becoming the ruler of Ala Mhigo is likely only due to the fact that prior to Garlean occupation, Ala Mhigo had rioted against their king, forced him to kill himself, and then were a nation divided by the left-over pieces of the King of Ruin's... ruin. The Garlean rule was a stabilizing force for the city-state, even though, under Gaius and Nael van Darnus's rule the city-state became a hellhole to live in, being the frontlines in the Eorzea occupation.

The real life Roman Empire was not the modern notion of a tyrannical empire, and more like a corporation that was doing a lot of hostile takeovers.

They would swoop into a country, defeat the armies and humiliate/kill the king, then let the people go back to business as usual. Rome usually did not run the day to activities of a province, it wasn't really efficient for them to do so. Instead they generally left the organization of governments intact, just with a roman at its head, and some bureaucrats to help manage things.

Really the only big difference for a person living in an area that was dominated (Let's use Egypt as an example), was you had Roman rulers (who were generally better, and professionally trained) instead of your old ones.

In theory there was a lot of stuff your country could no longer do on its own, like have a large standing army, or do its own diplomacy. However to most of the people living there, that didn't matter much, since a random farmer wouldn't have much input in those matters anyway.

However in order to get at the real good stuff in the provinces, you had to fight in the Roman army for a number of years (20-25). This would generally net you (and your sons) full citizenship, voting rights, pension, and legal protection under the law. I imagine that's why we so so many foreigners in the Garlean army, they want in on all that magitech prosperity, and are likely being rewarded with eventual citizenship. If the warrior of light doesn't kill them first.

There must have been some level of oppression going on, if not there would be little incentive to rebel after 20+ years.

(07-07-2015, 12:24 PM)allgivenover Wrote: [ -> ]There must have been some level of oppression going on, if not there would be little incentive to rebel after 20+ years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

"What did the Garleans ever done for us?"

"...Airships?"

"Right ok, I'll give you airships."

(07-07-2015, 12:17 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]However in order to get at the real good stuff in the provinces, you had to fight in the Roman army for a number of years (20-25). This would generally net you (and your sons) full citizenship, voting rights, pension, and legal protection under the law. I imagine that's why we so so many foreigners in the Garlean army, they want in on all that magitech prosperity, and are likely being rewarded with eventual citizenship. If the warrior of light doesn't kill them first.

This is touched upon in the notes of the Library and collected in the Garlean titles thread.

Quote:General Populus
...
Aan - peoples of annexed territories lacking basic citizens rights*
*Many Garleans view this as an opportunity rather than a condemnation, as citizenship may be granted to those who have demonstrated exceptional skills, as well as those who have contributed twenty or more years of military service.

(07-07-2015, 12:27 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-07-2015, 12:24 PM)allgivenover Wrote: [ -> ]There must have been some level of oppression going on, if not there would be little incentive to rebel after 20+ years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

"What did the Garleans ever done for us?"

"...Airships?"

"Right ok, I'll give you airships."

While they're inspired by the Romans, Garleans are not Romans.

One of their main goals is the eradication of primals through genocide of the people or beastmen who bring them forth. They're crueler than Romans by far, and they were plenty cruel on their own, gladiator games, slavery, proscription and religious oppression.

I had already typed this, but it's a good response to your post.

It's actually interesting just how much homework the Devs did on Rome. The Garlean Empire matches up so perfectly with most of it.

Event their penchant for dramatic statements like crashing moons into things and Razing nations (Doma).

Rome was a giant empire, but every province was run almost as a separate country. The Empire did not have the resources to do policing work, or to remove rebels and such. They only had that sort of control inside Italy. In the provinces the governors really only had one authority, and all other power stemmed from that.

They could control the Legions.

So often the Roman's wouldn't worry so much about small scale stuff, since it wasn't worth sending a Legion after. Then once it would get big enough they'd wreck everything, burn what's left, and piss on the ashes. The Roman's crucified people because it was a symbol. They would often crucify people all along an entire roadway for tens of miles, one particularly gruesome case had 6000 people along 100 miles of road.

The romans did this, just to make a point. Anyone who traveled that road (which took days) would be surrounded by dying and tortured people the whole time. Think of all the resources it takes to do something like that, and the Romans did it just to make a point.

If they could have crashed a moon into Carthage, trust me, they would have.

If they're exactly the same then the gift of an aqueduct/airship or two would seem a small thing compared to the atrocities endured.

So in the end my point remains I guess. The Domans didn't revolt because their lives were too rosy.

(07-07-2015, 01:13 PM)allgivenover Wrote: [ -> ]If they're exactly the same then the gift of and aqueduct/airship or two would seem a small thing compared to the atrocities endured.

So in the end my point remains I guess. The Domans didn't revolt because their lives were too rosy.

The atrocities come /after/ the rebellion. Most Garlean provinces are probably perfectly happy to chill and br part of the Empire.

Rebellions in the Roman Empire were exceedingly rare, and they probably are the same for the Garleans. The only one we do hear about gets stomped flat so no one gets any funny ideas.

I find your argument humorous (in a good way) because it is a very eternal question.

"Is it better to have safety or freedom?"

However that implies people were free before the Garleans invaded (we have no idea) they certainly were not before the Romana attacked. Generally it was just people trading one set of ruler for another.

(07-07-2015, 01:13 PM)allgivenover Wrote: [ -> ]If they're exactly the same then the gift of an aqueduct/airship or two would seem a small thing compared to the atrocities endured.

So in the end my point remains I guess. The Domans didn't revolt because their lives were too rosy.

But where do you get the atrocities from?

People talk about seceding from the US Government all the time over x y or z. People don't need open oppression to warrant thoughts of and actions of rebellion. The idea that they went from one ruler to another ruler is good enough. "I don't like the fact that these people from malms away is in charge."