Transitions of Power: Can They Be Peaceful? [Split from Royalist vs Monetarist]

[111]

Mod Post: Multiple requests were made for a split-off discussion. Seeing as how much of this was side conversation and could have potentially derailed the original thread, I've split it off to encourage that both discussions continue. ~ Melkire

 

Wiping out an entire opposing end of the political spectrum rarely ends well, as far as I know.

 

Drastic change never occurs peacefully.

But on the idea of Lolorito assuming power and the dynasty changing - there are hundreds of examples through history of noble houses coming to power the same way. I do not think this is crossing the line of believability at all.

 

Drastic change can occur peacefully. If you look at the american revolution for example. Besides the whole war with england, internally it was a rather peaceful transition.

 

The few token rebellions were quashed without even a shot usually (some of them personally by george washington).

 

Revolutions by the elite (which Ul'dahs or America's were) are far less bloody and complicated than revolutions by the masses (french, russian)

[Warren Castille]

Wiping out an entire opposing end of the political spectrum rarely ends well, as far as I know.

 

Drastic change never occurs peacefully.

But on the idea of Lolorito assuming power and the dynasty changing - there are hundreds of examples through history of noble houses coming to power the same way. I do not think this is crossing the line of believability at all.

 

Drastic change can occur peacefully. If you look at the american revolution for example. Besides the whole war with england, internally it was a rather peaceful transition.

 

The few token rebellions were quashed without even a shot usually (some of them personally by george washington).

 

Revolutions by the elite (which Ul'dahs or America's were) are far less bloody and complicated than revolutions by the masses (french, russian)

 

Casualties

Americans and allies

 

The total loss of life throughout the war is largely unknown. As was typical in the wars of the era, disease claimed far more lives than battle. Between 1775 and 1782 a smallpox epidemic swept across North America, killing 40 people in Boston alone. Historian Joseph Ellis suggests that Washington's decision to have his troops inoculated against the smallpox epidemic, including the use of biological warfare by the British, was one of his most important decisions.[169]

 

At least 25,000 American Patriots died during active military service.[16] About 6,800 of these deaths were in battle; the other 17,000 recorded deaths were from disease, including about 8,000–12,000 who died of starvation or disease brought on by deplorable conditions while prisoners of war,[170] most in rotting British prison ships in New York. Another estimate, however, puts the total death toll at around 70,000, which if true would make the conflict proportionately deadlier than the American Civil War.[9] The uncertainty arises from the number of disease deaths, which were believed to be quite numerous, amounting to an estimated 10,000 in 1776 alone.[9] The number of Patriots seriously wounded or disabled by the war has been estimated from 8,500 to 25,000.[171] Proportionate to the population of the colonies, the Revolutionary War was at least the second-deadliest conflict in American history, ranking ahead of World War II and behind only the Civil War.

[111]

Wiping out an entire opposing end of the political spectrum rarely ends well, as far as I know.

 

Drastic change never occurs peacefully.

But on the idea of Lolorito assuming power and the dynasty changing - there are hundreds of examples through history of noble houses coming to power the same way. I do not think this is crossing the line of believability at all.

 

Drastic change can occur peacefully. If you look at the american revolution for example. Besides the whole war with england, internally it was a rather peaceful transition.

 

The few token rebellions were quashed without even a shot usually (some of them personally by george washington).

 

Revolutions by the elite (which Ul'dahs or America's were) are far less bloody and complicated than revolutions by the masses (french, russian)

 

Casualties

Americans and allies

 

The total loss of life throughout the war is largely unknown. As was typical in the wars of the era, disease claimed far more lives than battle. Between 1775 and 1782 a smallpox epidemic swept across North America, killing 40 people in Boston alone. Historian Joseph Ellis suggests that Washington's decision to have his troops inoculated against the smallpox epidemic, including the use of biological warfare by the British, was one of his most important decisions.[169]

 

At least 25,000 American Patriots died during active military service.[16] About 6,800 of these deaths were in battle; the other 17,000 recorded deaths were from disease, including about 8,000–12,000 who died of starvation or disease brought on by deplorable conditions while prisoners of war,[170] most in rotting British prison ships in New York. Another estimate, however, puts the total death toll at around 70,000, which if true would make the conflict proportionately deadlier than the American Civil War.[9] The uncertainty arises from the number of disease deaths, which were believed to be quite numerous, amounting to an estimated 10,000 in 1776 alone.[9] The number of Patriots seriously wounded or disabled by the war has been estimated from 8,500 to 25,000.[171] Proportionate to the population of the colonies, the Revolutionary War was at least the second-deadliest conflict in American history, ranking ahead of World War II and behind only the Civil War.

 

Yes because there was a war. If England had just shook hands and let them leave, it would have been relatively bloodless.

 

I'm talking about internal strife, not external.

[Coatleque]

Yes because there was a war. If England had just shook hands and let them leave, it would have been relatively bloodless.

 

I'm talking about internal strife, not external.

 

It was a revolution. There was no "internal" until after the war was finished, and at that time the change had already become reality.

[Aduu Avagnar]

Wiping out an entire opposing end of the political spectrum rarely ends well, as far as I know.

 

Drastic change never occurs peacefully.

But on the idea of Lolorito assuming power and the dynasty changing - there are hundreds of examples through history of noble houses coming to power the same way.  I do not think this is crossing the line of believability at all.

 

Drastic change can occur peacefully. If you look at the american revolution for example. Besides the whole war with england, internally it was a rather peaceful transition.

 

The few token rebellions were quashed without even a shot usually (some of them personally by george washington).

 

Revolutions by the elite (which Ul'dahs or America's were) are far less bloody and complicated than revolutions by the masses (french, russian)

 

Casualties

Americans and allies

 

The total loss of life throughout the war is largely unknown. As was typical in the wars of the era, disease claimed far more lives than battle. Between 1775 and 1782 a smallpox epidemic swept across North America, killing 40 people in Boston alone. Historian Joseph Ellis suggests that Washington's decision to have his troops inoculated against the smallpox epidemic, including the use of biological warfare by the British, was one of his most important decisions.[169]

 

At least 25,000 American Patriots died during active military service.[16] About 6,800 of these deaths were in battle; the other 17,000 recorded deaths were from disease, including about 8,000–12,000 who died of starvation or disease brought on by deplorable conditions while prisoners of war,[170] most in rotting British prison ships in New York. Another estimate, however, puts the total death toll at around 70,000, which if true would make the conflict proportionately deadlier than the American Civil War.[9] The uncertainty arises from the number of disease deaths, which were believed to be quite numerous, amounting to an estimated 10,000 in 1776 alone.[9] The number of Patriots seriously wounded or disabled by the war has been estimated from 8,500 to 25,000.[171] Proportionate to the population of the colonies, the Revolutionary War was at least the second-deadliest conflict in American history, ranking ahead of World War II and behind only the Civil War.

 

 

Yes because there was a war. If England had just shook hands and let them leave, it would have been relatively bloodless.

 

I'm talking about internal strife, not external.

Of course there was a war. a better example would have been India. And them gettimg their independance via peaceful protest with Gandhi

[Aya]

Yes because there was a war. If England had just shook hands and let them leave, it would have been relatively bloodless.

 

I'm talking about internal strife, not external.

The internal conflicts within the colonies were intense and internecine.  I don't think peaceful is really an apt adjective for the era. (Between Loyalist and Patriot, sorry if that wasn't clear )

[OttoVann]

Now compare American rebellion / revolution to things.going down in yurop, it was better here.

[Aya]

Of course there was a war. a better example would have been India. And them gettimg their independance via peaceful protest with Gandhi

Which of course succeeded numerous and simultaneous violent revolutionary movements in India, and was followed immediately by a bloody war between the newly independent countries.

[111]

Yes because there was a war. If England had just shook hands and let them leave, it would have been relatively bloodless.

 

I'm talking about internal strife, not external.

 

It was a revolution. There was no "internal" until after the war was finished, and at that time the change had already become reality.

 

Compared to most revolutions of the time the American Revolution was positively tidy. There were no mass executions, people were willing to overlook what side you might have been afterwards, and soon after it ended most people accepted the new government.

 

Yes they fought a war, but it was against an external power. It was an external power as soon as they declared independence. All 13 colonies agreed, there was no purging or killing of those who disagreed, and also no organized resistance from colonists. While some were loyalists to the crown, they went and fought with the british.

 

America declared independence, which was essentially bloodless, and then was promptly invaded by a foreign power.

 

(To clarify, there were large numbers of loyalists, but they're better treated as volunteers signing on with the british cause and british army. Loyalist regiments did not organize, and act of their own accord.)

[Aya]

America declared independence, which was essentially bloodless, and then was promptly invaded by a foreign power.

 

(To clarify, there were large numbers of loyalists, but they're better treated as volunteers signing on with the british cause and british army. Loyalist regiments did not organize, and act of their own accord.)

I just want to note that I think both of these assertions are entirely incorrect... :-X

 

Edit: Here's an example of just one such Loyalist Regiment.

 

Modern Canada was essentially founded by Loyalists fleeing newly independent American and potential retribution.

[Aduu Avagnar]

Of course there was a war. a better example would have been India. And them gettimg their independance via peaceful protest with Gandhi

Which of course succeeded numerous and simultaneous violent revolutionary movements in India, and was followed immediately by a bloody war between the newly independent countries.

This is true, but the transition itself was peaceful.

 

I think it simply speaks volumes about humanity that we resort to violence to deal with our issues.

[111]

America declared independence, which was essentially bloodless, and then was promptly invaded by a foreign power.

 

(To clarify, there were large numbers of loyalists, but they're better treated as volunteers signing on with the british cause and british army. Loyalist regiments did not organize, and act of their own accord.)

I just want to note that I think both of these assertions are entirely incorrect... :-X

 

Edit: Here's an example of just one such Loyalist Regiment.

 

Modern Canada was essentially founded by Loyalists fleeing newly independent American and potential retribution.

 

You didn't read your own link. They were commissioned by the british army by american volunteers in british territory.

 

They were then sent to fight in Florida against the spanish. Yes there were loyalists, yes they joined the british cause, I'm not disputing that.

 

However as soon as America declared independence, England was a foreign power. They were troops volunteering with a foreign power. The declaration of independence, and the fact that all the colonies sighed it /Was/ the revolution. The war afterwards was great Britain invading this new country called America.

 

Yes Canada was loyalists fleeing, because they /fled/ they did not stage organize resistance against the revolution, and after England invaded they did join up in some numbers, but again, it's a foreign power.

[Aya]

You didn't read your own link. They were commissioned by the british army by american volunteers in british territory.

 

They were then sent to fight in Florida against the spanish. Yes there were loyalists, yes they joined the british cause, I'm not disputing that.

 

However as soon as America declared independence, England was a foreign power. They were troops volunteering with a foreign power. The declaration of independence, and the fact that all the colonies sighed it /Was/ the revolution. The war afterwards was great Britain invading this new country called America.

 

Yes Canada was loyalists fleeing, because they /fled/ they did not stage organize resistance against the revolution, and after England invaded they did join up in some numbers, but again, it's a foreign power.

They were raised as volunteers, yes they were commissioned by the British army to become a British army unit - how does this differ from Continental Militia?  I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.

 

The neat and tidy little distinction (with regards to a definitive line drawn where the Revolution began and ended, followed by a foreign invasion) you're trying to make is the stuff of the-winner-writes-the-history.  I'd be curious to know what your opinion were on the American Civil War, given how you've set this one up. 

 

Regardless, the point is that large numbers of Americans supported the British cause, and fought alongside them (however it is you're trying to categorize them).  There was significant civil strife (because it was, in reality, a civil war - the final episode of the English Civil War, really).  Communities and families were torn apart by competing loyalties, and atrocities were committed by both sides.  Thousands died in open warfare, and as the war ended thousands more were uprooted from their homes to flee for safer climes forever reshaping the nature of North America. 

 

It wasn't as bloody as the French Revolution (nothing in Western history to that point had been), but it was hardly peaceful!

[Verad]

If I may neatly sidestep the business of American history, check the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslavkia for a useful example of a peaceful transition. Also note the rarity of the peacefulness of the transition, and that its peaceful nature was spurred by the standing government seeing the writing on the wall with regards to the collapse of the Soviet bloc.

 

I'd be curious to know what your opinion were on the American Civil War, given how you've set this one up.  

 

Plzno.

[Aya]

Oh!  I suppose on the bigger question here, I think there's no theoretical reason they couldn't be... political transitions when the basic structures of society remain unchanged can definitely be relatively peaceful.  But they do tend to come with general upheaval of some variety, and more often than not significant violence.

 

I think the Velvet Revolution has to be viewed in the context of the Eastern Bloc as a whole in that moment: it could proceed peacefully because of the blood already shed in Poland and the Soviet Union (otherwise it would have ended as had the earlier Czech uprising against the Communists).  Overall the collapse of communism was a whimper compared to the Revolution and War that installed it in the first place.  Probably a pretty good example of a "peaceful" transition of political system combined with relatively little violence, but significant social changes as well.

[111]

You didn't read your own link. They were commissioned by the british army by american volunteers in british territory.

 

They were then sent to fight in Florida against the spanish. Yes there were loyalists, yes they joined the british cause, I'm not disputing that.

 

However as soon as America declared independence, England was a foreign power. They were troops volunteering with a foreign power. The declaration of independence, and the fact that all the colonies sighed it /Was/ the revolution. The war afterwards was great Britain invading this new country called America.

 

Yes Canada was loyalists fleeing, because they /fled/ they did not stage organize resistance against the revolution, and after England invaded they did join up in some numbers, but again, it's a foreign power.

They were raised as volunteers, yes they were commissioned by the British army to become a British army unit - how does this differ from Continental Militia?  I really don't understand the distinction you're trying to make.

 

The neat and tidy little distinction you're trying to make is the stuff of the-winner-writes-the-history.  I'd be curious to know what your opinion were on the American Civil War, given how you've set this one up. 

 

Regardless, the point is that large numbers of Americans supported the British cause, and fought alongside them (however it is you're trying to categorize them).  There was significant civil strife (because it was, in reality, a civil war - the final episode of the English Civil War, really).  Communities and families were torn apart by competing loyalties, and atrocities were committed by both sides.  Thousands died in open warfare, and as the war ended thousands more were uprooted from their homes to flee for safer climes forever reshaping the nature of North America. 

 

It wasn't as bloody as the French Revolution (nothing in Western history to that point had been), but it was hardly peaceful!

 

I would continue to argue that it was. If you consider a revolution the transfer of power, authority and control of a political entity (Nation, city state, empire, etc) from one group to another. The American revolution was basically completely bloodless. There were no troops storming a palace, no heads were put up on spikes, there was no cloak and daggers.

 

They elected representatives, they got together, they voted, they wrote a paper, and they signed it.

 

I would argue similarly for the American Civil war.

 

Now obviously the aftermath is different. Civil wars often follow revolutions, and are usually much bloodier than the revolutions that caused them.

 

As a good example of what I mean, the russian revolution (which was relatively low key) is quite different from the russian civil war.

 

As in the US, once a new group seizes power, then there may be lots of other groups who don't want them to have that power.

 

Ul'dah has had a revolution of sorts, but obviously the Flames are none too pleased about it, so there could be a civil war afterwards.

 

Maybe a better question than the one this thread is asking is "Must a Civil war always follow a revolution?"

[Aya]

 

I'd be curious to know what your opinion were on the American Civil War, given how you've set this one up.  

 

Plzno.

I agree, I meant to phrase it so that it would not be answered. :-x  And if she does I'll apologize and go hide, Verad!

[Warren Castille]

I think everyone here is narrowly missing one another.

 

The crux becomes "when is power actually transitioned?" Because declaring independence doesn't actually grant you independence. The colonies signing a paper didn't suddenly remove England's grasp on the territories, and the war wasn't unrelated. Similarly, declaring secession from the country doesn't actually secede you from a country, hence the attached war.

 

One party is saying these are separate events, one party is saying they're innately connected.

[Verad]

There does seem to be a bit of the sovereign citizen logic involved there, whereby the legalistic is treated as being synonymous with authority.

[Gegenji]

Because declaring independence doesn't actually grant you independence. The colonies signing a paper didn't suddenly remove England's grasp on the territories, and the war wasn't unrelated. Similarly, declaring secession from the country doesn't actually secede you from a country, hence the attached war.

 

So basically the transition isn't over until all involved parties recognize said transition of power? And the wars that often follow are the original power's attempt to quell what is, technically, still an uprising or coup?

[111]

There does seem to be a bit of the sovereign citizen logic involved there, whereby the legalistic is treated as being synonymous with authority.

 

It is one thing to be a a dude saying "I don't need a license"

 

It's another to be a nation-state with your own government, military and currency. Just because the South lost the Civil War doesn't mean it wasn't a nation state while it existed.

 

The truest test of authority though is the ability to retain it, and sovereign citizens are dumb because they lack this capacity.

 

I think everyone here is narrowly missing one another.

 

The crux becomes "when is power actually transitioned?" Because declaring independence doesn't actually grant you independence.

 

Of course it does. However it only grants you independence so long as you can hold onto it. Just like any other political entity.

[Harmonixer]

As I read all of this, a thought comes to mind:

 

Is this sort of thing in place to fill in the void of 'faction' gameplay elements?

 

For the most part, outside of PvP- we as players are united. ICly from what I understand, adventurers work together and accomplish a great many things. There isn't a Elyos/Asmodian conflict, or a Alliance/Horde thing here.

 

We have some friendly shoulder punching when it comes to Grand Companies, but it's mostly representative of the city states and for variety, general life to the game.

 

I do agree that this subject is interesting, but I wonder if somewhere they thought against making this gameplay related as an effort to prevent splitting up the playerbase.

 

Regardless, I'm struggling to decide if this is what I want the focus of the games story to be on. It's mostly predictable at best and at worst it sometimes executed hamfisted. It's difficult even to make criticisms of the game in certain circles because they are quick to defend it without looking at the bigger picture.

 

I do enjoy this, I have been and I hope to continue to well into the expansion, but it's somewhat of a dangerous juggle to do stuff like this and still keep the 'the power of peace and love will conquer all' among the 'powerstruggle of basic human ideals and desires'.

 

I'm awaiting patiently to see what they do with all of it. It's important to me they take the time they need to execute the story they are trying to tell, because I feel with the right amount of time it could surprise and even impress me.

 

It's gotten better, but it hasn't quite gripped me just yet. Close, but I may just be overthinking it, as ever. I just don't want the ascians to stick their grimdark dicks into everything and suddenly override the whole 'btw, real people are just as evil if not worse than everyone else'.

 

Also constantly challenging what the definition of evil is, but that's another rant.

[V'aleera]

Because declaring independence doesn't actually grant you independence.

I would argue that it does. In that moment an allegedly dependent entity asserts its own independent agency. The onus then falls upon the power from which that entity removed itself to either recognize that claim or make the attempt to regain control over the newly independent entity.

 

Also, speaking more directly toward the topic: many historians consider the election of 1800 to be of particular note for the fact that one party (Democratic-Republicans) almost completely usurped the power of its polar opposite (Federalists) without any bloodshed at all.

[Khadan]

Interesting historical side-note since the American Revolutionary war is brought up often: The actual total number of Americans that fought for independence never totaled more than three percent of the colonials. 

 

I guess the lesson there is apparently a small but dedicated group can do some crazy things.

 

That or a small number of people can spoil the party for everyone. :dodgy:

[V'aleera]

That or a small number of people can spoil the tea party for everyone. :dodgy:

Fixed