[split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire

[split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - Printable Version

+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Final Fantasy 14 (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=41)
+--- Forum: FFXIV Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire (/showthread.php?tid=12473)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: LOREMASTERS, Help me confirm Au Ra/Othard Lore! (Contains WHM/DRK Job Spoilers! - allgivenover - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 01:21 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: The atrocities come /after/ the rebellion. Most Garlean provinces are probably perfectly happy to chill and br part of the Empire.

...

However that implies people were free before the Garleans invaded (we have no idea) they certainly were not before the Romana attacked.

We have no idea if/when any atrocities came at all and we certainly have no idea if peoples conquered by Garleans are happy about it. What actually happened with Roman history again does mean the same things happened with Garleans.

My point is if things were so great under Garlean rule, then why a risky rebellion after a generation of peace?

Prosperity trumps pride, so something must have been going on.

The Xaela fled the Garleans west from Othard for a reason too.

RE: LOREMASTERS, Help me confirm Au Ra/Othard Lore! (Contains WHM/DRK Job Spoilers! - McBeefâ„¢ - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 01:29 PM)allgivenover Wrote:
(07-07-2015, 01:21 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: The atrocities come /after/ the rebellion. Most Garlean provinces are probably perfectly happy to chill and br part of the Empire.

...

However that implies people were free before the Garleans invaded (we have no idea) they certainly were not before the Romana attacked.

We have no idea if/when any atrocities came at all and we certainly have no idea if peoples conquered by Garleans are happy about it. What actually happened with Roman history again does mean the same things happened with Garleans.

My point is if things were so great under Garlean rule, then why a risky rebellion after a generation of peace?

Prosperity trumps pride, so something must have been going on.

The Xaela fled the Garleans west from Othard for a reason too.

Like Kage said, sometimes people just want to do their own shit.

As a case close to my home, you can look at the American Revolution.

In 1770 the American Colonies were one of the most prosperous places on earth. People were wealthier, happier, healthier, and freer than those in mainland Britain. Despite taxes, a pound of tea in Boston was cheaper than a pound of tea in London, and mainlanders paid for more taxes besides.

Yet the Colonies rebelled, and England didn't. Why?

Well... because they thought they could get away with it, and while what they had was pretty good (among the best on earth at the time), they wanted to do things their own way.

Obviously Garlemald is a harsh mistress, but I wouldn't paint them as a mindless evil empire. They wield mercy and savagery both with equal ease, all in their mission to protect the world from the existential threat of the primals. The world is slowly being destroyed, or so we're led to believe...

What are a few dead beastmen tribes in comparison to that?

You could replace Eikon's with 'Facism', look at the destruction we wrought in the 1940s to stamp out that particular ideological taint. Give the Empire a little sympathy, who knows, they might actually be the good guys.

Show Content

RE: LOREMASTERS, Help me confirm Au Ra/Othard Lore! (Contains WHM/DRK Job Spoilers! - LiadansWhisper - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 02:10 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:

Show Content

Spoiler
ALL HAIL THE EMPIRE

TRAITOR!

....more on topic, Nat's right about the Roman Empire and the correlations with Garlemald (at least as far as I can tell anyway!). Â I'm actually quite curious what the society is like in the "homeland," as it were. Â I hope we get to go there someday. Â :S

RE: LOREMASTERS, Help me confirm Au Ra/Othard Lore! (Contains WHM/DRK Job Spoilers! - allgivenover - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 02:10 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: In 1770 the American Colonies were one of the most prosperous places on earth. People were wealthier, happier, healthier, and freer than those in mainland Britain.

Well... because they thought they could get away with it, and while what they had was pretty good (among the best on earth at the time), they wanted to do things their own way.

This is way, way off.

Show Content

Off-topic Content(Elaboration)

The colonies rebelled because of several reasons, not because "they could get away with it" and they certainly weren't "freer than those in mainland Britain".

It basically boiled down to political voice, limitation of expansion, and restriction of trade and other rights.

The colonists fought alongside the British in the French-Indian war, and were very resentful of the fact that the burden of paying for that war was levied on them in the midst of a tighter trade restriction. The British would only allow the colonists to trade with Britain, which although traditional and accepted since the colonies inception was a bitter thing to endure in addition to the tax burden.

Before, the colonists hadn't ever had to pay taxes, the reason being because the colonists made Britain wealthy by selling them raw resources on the cheap and then importing expensive finished goods from the motherland. So the tax burden leveled solely on them after fighting alongside the British in a war in which many of them gave their lives for the crown was a bitter thing. This alongside the reality that they had no political voice, as the colonists were not allowed to elect a representative to the house of commons.

After the war against the French the colonists felt it was their right to expand westward into what is modern Ohio, the crown denied this western expansion, which further angered colonists, who were eager to carve out better lives out west.

Initial peaceful protest against this was met with several stupid moves on the crowns part. First they began quartering additional soldiers among the colonists, and leveled ADDITIONAL taxes to pay for it, then they prohibited free and open assembly of men, when the colonists became angry they took away due process and trial by jury.

Finally the Boston tea party happened (the only thing that ever gets taught in school), and after that British soldiers were sent to confiscate weapons and powder stores, which started the fights at Lexington and Concord, which ignited the war.

Hugely off track I know, but it was certainly not "because they felt like it". Initially the colonists were extremely amiable in working things out with the British, but the crown was worn by George III in that period, he that thought leniency from the crown would weaken his position. Many historians consider him today to blame for the decline in British power and the ultimate end to the imperial era.

About Garleans and Doma, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see Imperial Garlean occupation as possibly being pleasant given what we know from the Ala Mhigan invasion, their solution to the primal problem, and their reaction to the Ninja rebellion in Doma.

RE: LOREMASTERS, Help me confirm Au Ra/Othard Lore! (Contains WHM/DRK Job Spoilers! - McBeefâ„¢ - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 03:41 PM)allgivenover Wrote:
(07-07-2015, 02:10 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote: In 1770 the American Colonies were one of the most prosperous places on earth. People were wealthier, happier, healthier, and freer than those in mainland Britain.

Well... because they thought they could get away with it, and while what they had was pretty good (among the best on earth at the time), they wanted to do things their own way.

This is way, way off.

Show Content

Off-topic Content(Elaboration)
The colonies rebelled because of several reasons, not because "they could get away with it" and they certainly weren't "freer than those in mainland Britain".

It basically boiled down to political voice, limitation of expansion, and restriction of trade and other rights.

The colonists fought alongside the British in the French-Indian war, and were very resentful of the fact that the burden of paying for that war was levied on them in the midst of a tighter trade restriction. The British would only allow the colonists to trade with Britain, which although traditional and accepted since the colonies inception was a bitter thing to endure in addition to the tax burden.

Before, the colonists hadn't ever had to pay taxes, the reason being because the colonists made Britain wealthy by selling them raw resources on the cheap and then importing expensive finished goods from the motherland. So the tax burden leveled solely on them after fighting alongside the British in a war in which many of them gave their lives for the crown was a bitter thing. This alongside the reality that they had no political voice, as the colonists were not allowed to elect a representative to the house of commons.

After the war against the French the colonists felt it was their right to expand westward into what is modern Ohio, the crown denied this western expansion, which further angered colonists, who were eager to carve out better lives out west.

Initial peaceful protest against this was met with several stupid moves on the crowns part. First they began quartering additional soldiers among the colonists, and leveled ADDITIONAL taxes to pay for it, then they prohibited free and open assembly of men, when the colonists became angry they took away due process and trial by jury.

Finally the Boston tea party happened (the only thing that ever gets taught in school), and after that British soldiers were sent to confiscate weapons and powder stores, which started the fights at Lexington and Concord, which ignited the war.

Hugely off track I know, but it was certainly not "because they felt like it". Initially the colonists were extremely amiable in working things out with the British, but the crown was worn by George III in that period, he that thought leniency from the crown would weaken his position. Many historians consider him today to blame for the decline in British power and the ultimate end to the imperial era.

About Garleans and Doma, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see Imperial Garlean occupation as possibly being pleasant given what we know from the Ala Mhigan invasion, their solution to the primal problem, and their reaction to the Ninja rebellion in Doma.

My only argument, is that the Mainlanders had it far worse than the colonists, a thing none of those word disproves. Obviously they didn't just do it on a lark, but there was nothing about their situation that was worse than people in England, despite that list of grievances.

Again, like I said, they rebelled while the mainlanders didn't, because they thought they could get away with it, and they wanted to.

They weren't oppressed, their tax burdens were light, and they had far more freedom than the average man in London. But they wanted to do things their own way, and so they did.

Domans probably did the same thing, they wanted their own religion, culture, and to be their own country. And they probably thought they could get away with it too.

Spoiler alert, they couldn't.

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - allgivenover - 07-07-2015

Whether the burden is light or not, or the reasoning was just doesn't matter, I was only contesting the idea that it was because they felt like it, which on it's own was a ridiculous oversimplification of what happened.

You and I clearly read history very differently so I don't see much point in continuing the discussion.

Garlemald is analogous to Rome, but that doesn't mean they're exactly the same as Rome. I doubt being occupied by them is a day to day struggle of violence with a boot on your neck, but I also doubt it's a wholly pleasant experience that you wouldn't seek to escape from.

Certainly there were Doman collaborators and rebels both, even if day to day life was calm. That's how I'm writing my Raen's experiences growing up in the occupation.

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - V'aleera - 07-07-2015

Speaking more toward the Xaela under Garlean rule, my personal speculation is that the Othard steppes and mountains are likely "controlled" by the Garlean Empire in the same way the American West was "controlled" by the federal government: they said they controlled it, they had fancy papers saying they controlled it, and most foreign nations respected their control of it... but they really had no actual control over most of it.

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - McBeefâ„¢ - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 05:14 PM)Intaki Wrote: Speaking more toward the Xaela under Garlean rule, my personal speculation is that the Othard steppes and mountains are likely "controlled" by the Garlean Empire in the same way the American West was "controlled" by the federal government: they said they controlled it, they had fancy papers saying they controlled it, and most foreign nations respected their control of it... but they really had no actual control over most of it.

That's my guess too. Armies are expensive, in premodern times, and there is no such thing as a professional 'police' as we know it.

If an area doesn't have many resources, just let them do what they like, and grab some taxes now and then.

There are supposedly not many Garleans in the world, so I bet many people in the Empire have never even seen one.

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - Unnamed Mercenary - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 05:36 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(07-07-2015, 05:14 PM)Intaki Wrote: Speaking more toward the Xaela under Garlean rule, my personal speculation is that the Othard steppes and mountains are likely "controlled" by the Garlean Empire in the same way the American West was "controlled" by the federal government: they said they controlled it, they had fancy papers saying they controlled it, and most foreign nations respected their control of it... but they really had no actual control over most of it.

That's my guess too. Armies are expensive, in premodern times, and there is no such thing as a professional 'police' as we know it.

If an area doesn't have many resources, just let them do what they like, and grab some taxes now and then.

There are supposedly not many Garleans in the world, so I bet many people in the Empire have never even seen one.

Or their leaders aren't pureblood Garleans. Just people who follow Garlean law. We know there's a lot of indoctrination/brainwashing. I'd assume there're more indoctrinated Garleans than people in/from Garlemald proper.

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - McBeefâ„¢ - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 05:38 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote:
(07-07-2015, 05:36 PM)Natalie Mcbeef Wrote:
(07-07-2015, 05:14 PM)Intaki Wrote: Speaking more toward the Xaela under Garlean rule, my personal speculation is that the Othard steppes and mountains are likely "controlled" by the Garlean Empire in the same way the American West was "controlled" by the federal government: they said they controlled it, they had fancy papers saying they controlled it, and most foreign nations respected their control of it... but they really had no actual control over most of it.

That's my guess too. Armies are expensive, in premodern times, and there is no such thing as a professional 'police' as we know it.

If an area doesn't have many resources, just let them do what they like, and grab some taxes now and then.

There are supposedly not many Garleans in the world, so I bet many people in the Empire have never even seen one.

Or their leaders aren't pureblood Garleans. Just people who follow Garlean law. We know there's a lot of indoctrination/brainwashing. I'd assume there're more indoctrinated Garleans than people in/from Garlemald proper.

I don't think they're really indoctrinated. I'm not sure where that is ever stated by someone who is not biased. I'm sure plenty of people sign up for adventure, pay, and a cool uniform and laser gun.

If I recall no Garlean we speak to seems particularly indoctrinated, besides believing firmly in the cause of the Empire. There is a moogle mail quest with a Garlean deserter, and he never talks about being brainwashed (to my memory).

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - V'aleera - 07-07-2015

1.0 had some quests about Garlean indoctrination of conquered nations.

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - K'nahli - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 05:14 PM)Intaki Wrote: Speaking more toward the Xaela under Garlean rule, my personal speculation is that the Othard steppes and mountains are likely "controlled" by the Garlean Empire in the same way the American West was "controlled" by the federal government: they said they controlled it, they had fancy papers saying they controlled it, and most foreign nations respected their control of it... but they really had no actual control over most of it.

This was pretty much my belief too when a friend brought up the issue of Garlean control over Othard to me today.

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - McBeefâ„¢ - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 05:59 PM)Intaki Wrote: 1.0 had some quests about Garlean indoctrination of conquered nations.

Ah, any details? Like they go to a school and learn that Garlemald is the best?

Or they get zapped by a mind control gun?

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - V'aleera - 07-07-2015

There's a video somewhere around here with the cutscenes. Basically the children get taken away and taught to be good citizens, or something to that effect.

RE: [split] Garlemald's Presence in Othard and Relation to the Roman Empire - McBeefâ„¢ - 07-07-2015

(07-07-2015, 06:09 PM)Intaki Wrote: There's a video somewhere around here with the cutscenes. Basically the children get taken away and taught to be good citizens, or something to that effect.

Ah, so soft indoctrination, the carrot, not the stick.

The Razings are the stick.

Doesn't strike me as particularly nefarious. It's not just beastmen that can summon primals, educating people that primals are bad, and that they shouldn't pray to them or summon them. It's hard to get adults to change, but they at least get the next generation.