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

[Jana]

[[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.

[Clover]

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.

 

Apparently, the ninja quest features an Au Ra princess from Othard who needs your help with a problem of her clan. Unless I completely misunderstood, there are no mentions of Imperials being a part of that problem, so it sounds as if Othard people were still living their everyday lives in their own culture? The Xaela lore also talks as if Xaela tribes were still doing their thing, living free.

 

I really need to know what the situation in other cities that aren't Doma is like, for I'm supposed to RP a Raen and I'm very confused now.

 

[Seriphyn]

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').

[Clover]

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.

[Unnamed Mercenary]

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.

[Sounsyy]

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.

[111]

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.

[allgivenover]

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

[111]

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

 

 

"What did the Garleans ever done for us?"

 

"...Airships?"

 

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

[Kage]

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.

 

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.

[allgivenover]

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

 

 

"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.

[111]

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.

[allgivenover]

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.

[111]

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.

[Kage]

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."

[allgivenover]

 

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.

[111]

 

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.

 

 

 

ALL HAIL THE EMPIRE

 

 

[LiadansWhisper]

 

 

 

 

 

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!).  I'm actually quite curious what the society is like in the "homeland," as it were.  I hope we get to go there someday.  

[allgivenover]

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.

 

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.

[111]

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.

 

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.

[allgivenover]

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.

[V'aleera]

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.

[111]

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.

[Unnamed Mercenary]

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.

[111]

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).