Ok but can we talk about the Adrestian Empire

[GriffinKnight]

All right, there is nothing more that I love than history, especially fake history. So I am so excited that The world of Fodlan appears to actually have some history, unlike say, Fateslandia. But one of the few tidbits we have gotten from the trailer in the most recent Direct, is that the Adrestian Empire is ruled by a dynasty that is 1,000 years old, and THAT is impressive. For anyone who likes to just peruse through history (or played any amount of CK2), then it would be impressive to anyone that keeping a dynasty on any throne for more than 400 years is a feat in of itself, but somehow the Adrestian's have managed something only the Japanese Imperial Family has managed to do by making it to over a thousand. So I'm curious, how have they managed this feat? Obviously, we won't know till the game comes out (hopefully...maybe) , But I do love a little speculation, so I will go over some I think possible, and others I think highly improbable.

First on the list, and most probable to me , is that the imperial family of Adrestia claim to be of descent from Seiros. I say this, because that is one of the few reasons the Japanese Emperors have lasted quite so long, because they declared to be descended from Amaterasu, being the children of gods. It would not surprise to see the Adrestian Empire try to make such a claim (true or not, we'll have to wait and see), and it would make sense in a more historical light, as many rulers of nations in the past have claimed descent from any number of gods/goddesses, though I think Seiros, despite being the figure the church is most identifying with, seems to just be a regular person, who was blessed by the real goddess, so I'd say Seiros is more of a saint. But that still amounts to some sort of "Blessed Blood" in the Adrestian's (if my theory is true), which would explain the lack of people trying to kill them off so they could rule instead, and why their dynasty has lasted so long.

The second likely way they have managed to stay in power, is by either 

1.Keeping such a tight stranglehold on power that the people have no choice but to accept their fate, kind of like the Rigellian Empire.

or 2. They have been so benevolent that everyone loves them and wants to keep them safe. This second one is far less likely, mostly because of the negative associations most peoples minds have with the word "empire" in the first place. Nothing with the word "empire" in it's name has ever behaved in a completely noble way. Just saying.

And my least likely reason for their longevity is well, they control some sort of technological advancement that no other person has. I find this highly unlikely, based solely on the fact that this is Fire Emblem, and they are very strict on how advanced the tech is in the games, so I doubt the Empire controls cannons or matchlock rifles, as interesting as that would be. I just don't see this as a possibility.

Well those are some of my guesses as to how the Adrestian Empire has managed to keep it's dynasty going for so long, what are some other peoples thoughts, I am highly curious, or does no one else care, which as a history nerd, I have run into that, but yes please, share your thoughts. Oh, and obviously, I know that we will (maybe) get the answer to this question in the game, but that is months away, and I just couldn't stop my brain from thinking about this.

[omegaxis1]

But... didn't Ylisse keep a monarch rule for 1000 years since the First Exalt? And they are descendants of Marth, 1000 years before even the First Exalt, who united the continent under his rule. His family maintained a powerful rule over a large territory for 2000 years now, even if other nations had split.

[Etrurian emperor]

Its also possible that they aren't nearly as old as they claim they are. If the emperor tells the historians to write down some fake history then most will probably agree to it...or else. 

[GriffinKnight]

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

But... didn't Ylisse keep a monarch rule for 1000 years since the First Exalt? And they are descendants of Marth, 1000 years before even the First Exalt, who united the continent under his rule. His family maintained a powerful rule over a large territory for 2000 years now, even if other nations had split.

True that, but we know how they managed that, through hero worship, love of the exalts and divine blood, as well as stable rulership... mostly, as I recall there was a bit of a crisis under Chrom/Emmeryn/Lissa's dad that almost destroyed Ylisse, which is something I expect to see the Adrestian Empire have in their history at least a little. Also Ylisse did appear to lose a lot of territory over time, what with them having once had control over all the continent, now they share it with 2 other countries. Also, and this is just a nit-pick, yes Chrom and his siblings are said to have descended from Marth, but without a last name for most Fire Emblem characters, it's hard to tell if they descended directly from the first exalt 100%. and what I mean by that is, they could be a branch of the family descended from some ruler in the pasts sister, as that has happened in real history, and in that case, they would be of a different house, while still being descended from Marth and all that. It's the unbroken dynasty thing that has me more interested, not the descent from Marth. As I said, a nit-pick, but I do concede to the point that yes, technically, Chrom is from Marth's bloodline at the very least.

Edited February 20, 2019 by GriffinKnight

[omegaxis1]

2 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Its also possible that they aren't nearly as old as they claim they are. If the emperor tells the historians to write down some fake history then most will probably agree to it...or else. 

Has there been a nation with a falsified history?

40 minutes ago, GriffinKnight said:

True that, but we know how they managed that, through hero worship, love of the exalts and divine blood, as well as stable rulership... mostly, as I recall there was a bit of a crisis under Chrom/Emmeryn/Lissa's dad that almost destroyed Ylisse, which is something I expect to see the Adrestian Empire have in their history at least a little. Also Ylisse did appear to lose a lot of territory over time, what with them having once had control over all the continent, now they share it with 2 other countries. Also, and this is just a nit-pick, yes Chrom and his siblings are said to have descended from Marth, but without a last name for most Fire Emblem characters, it's hard to tell if they descended directly from the first exalt 100%. and what I mean by that is, they could be a branch of the family descended from some ruler in the pasts sister, as that has happened in real history, and in that case, they would be of a different house, while still being descended from Marth and all that. It's the unbroken dynasty thing that has me more interested, not the descent from Marth. As I said, a nit-pick, but I do concede to the point that yes, technically, Chrom is from Marth's bloodline at the very least.

I agree that by the time of the First Exalt, the united continent splintered into three nations, but it is still impressive that they managed to maintain a rule over the blood descendant of Marth as they have. Also, it's hard to say if anyone can be a "direct" descendant of anyone in 2000 years.

[Etrurian emperor]

21 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

Has there been a nation with a falsified history?

Begnion considering they wrote out Lehran

[omegaxis1]

1 minute ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Begnion considering they wrote out Lehran

But didn't Lehran ask for that?

[Etrurian emperor]

24 minutes ago, omegaxis1 said:

But didn't Lehran ask for that?

Yeah but that doesn't really matter. The end result is still some faked history and the Begnion people being duped into not knowing their Apostles are branded. For good reasons but still. 

[omegaxis1]

6 minutes ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Yeah but that doesn't really matter. The end result is still some faked history and the Begnion people being duped into not knowing their Apostles are branded. For good reasons but still. 

True. Actually, its similar to the case of the Dragon War, the Holy War, the founding of Archanea, etc.

[vanguard333]

A lot of empires fall either from growing too big to retain centralized authority, or splitting it among different successors. If you look at the Adrestian Empire, it spans roughly a third of the continent, and its borders are clearly defined across natural formations (mountains and rivers) that would make invasion from outside forces difficult. It wouldn't be too difficult for the dynasty to maintain centralized authority.

As for maintaining the dynasty itself; they would have to avoid any potential succession crisis or revolt/revolution. Centralized authority would help them avoid the latter, while the former is fairly difficult to avoid; that's the problem with inherited power. They would've had to maintain a clear line of succession for 1,000 years; that's not an easy feat. 

 

9 hours ago, GriffinKnight said:

or 2. They have been so benevolent that everyone loves them and wants to keep them safe. This second one is far less likely, mostly because of the negative associations most peoples minds have with the word "empire" in the first place. Nothing with the word "empire" in it's name has ever behaved in a completely noble way. Just saying.

That's actually not that unrealistic; one of the most important things for maintaining an empire for any extended length of time is ensuring that people want to remain part of it. The Persian Empire made a big deal out of equality and inclusivity; being one of the first places to allow complete freedom of religion, among other things, as well as providing increase in trade within the empire, an actual postal system within the empire, etc. Even the Romans, as evil as they were a lot of the time, did introduce some things that people actually liked. 

[Disclaimer]

Fantasy settings rarely put much thought into the length of dynasties or the passage of time, so I don't expect Three Houses to be any different. There might be a shallow reason given, but that'll probably be the extent of it. 

The divine blood theory is possible (although I wonder if the "Holy Kingdom" wouldn't be more likely?), but I'm personally of the opinion that the Seiros is still living — that she's an immortal manakete, like Sothis. 

[Enduin]

I'm not sure where I stand on the age of the Church of Seiros. It could be really old or relatively recent. I'm leaning towards the latter.

While the Direct trailer says the the continent has existed since "time immemorial" and is protected by a revered Goddess, it doesn't say anything about the church's age. While the E3 trailer simply states "Long ago" with regards to when the Goddess gave Seiros her divine revelation, which could mean anything from a couple hundred to couple thousand years.

If the Three Kingdoms are on the brink of war in Three Houses I feel like the last major conflict will still need to be somewhat fresh in their minds and not like a millennia ago. If the Church emerged say 300+ years ago and over the span of a century helped to establish the "relative harmony" the Three Kingdoms are now in with no major conflict in 100+ years that would make a lot more sense to me. But this is a fantasy setting so anything is really possible. Being that Faerghus is the "Holy Kingdom" that to me sounds like it was something that was born after the Church was founded, or at least dramatically reshaped by its emergence. While then Leicester Alliance definitely seems like it will be the youngest nation which may have been born from the dissolution of another Kingdom and Dynasty entirely or it may have broke off from one or both of the other Fodlan Kingdoms in a more recent conflict, which may only be a century or so old and the veritable seeds of conflict that still linger to this day.

Back to the topic at hand of the Adrestian Empire I think the fact that it's potentially much older than the Church could be an important one. Especially when it comes to Edelgard's views on the Church, Crests and so on as we heard in the E3 Trailer. Being the heir to the Empire means she has access to records and archives likely spanning much much further back than anyone else if the lineage of her family and kingdom are true and the other kingdoms were formed after the Church came into being and before it could really quell all conflict. It may be that at some point she's able to leverage that to find records dating from before or during the rise of the Church of Seiros and uncover hidden truths long forgotten and suppressed by the rest of the world. But that's likely wishful thinking on my part.

[Onestep]

Starting in 769, it is absolutely ******* impossible to wipe the Karling bloodline out, unless you do it in the first 100 years. Otherwise they spread everywhere, and just when you think you're done purging, you look at their dynasty and it turns out Charlemagne's fifth son's great grandson's cousin is the King of Lithuania and has forty children set to inherit half of Europe.

So no. I don't find a 1000 year Empire beyond belief.

[Guest Boatcat]

Maybe the Adrestian dynasty has stayed in place due to a toss-up of power between the imperial family and another group, like the shogunate in Japan, with emperors holding a ceremonial role while the shogunate was in power, but the emperor carrying power when the shogunate was not in power. It makes sense for the Adrestian royals to be in power due to some perceived divinity too, to have a dynasty last so long.

[NekoKnight]

I think fantasy stories greatly exaggerated the realistic longevity of dynasties. Even in the case of Japan, the actual control of the country has shifted between several different factions and families. Sure the imperial line in Japan continues on but that's because the institution only has as much power as the ruling faction allows it to.

It probably just sounds cooler to say "Marth started a dynasty that lasted a thousand years" than " it lasted few hundred years before their influence waned and another rival power we know very little about overthrew them and started another dynasty."

All that said, Fire Emblem especially has a fondness for holy bloodlines, chosen ones and a highly romanticized look at feudalism so maybe they can get away with saying that a family is so special that no one ever questions or threatens their authority for hundreds of years.

[Nanima]

I'd say it's possible, but less forward than the game likely makes it out to be. In real life, old ruling houses like this often have multiple branches at the same time, which can retain the family name or even just keep part of it. When the house dies out in the main line and the branch takes over, keeping or retaking the old ruling family's name is a valid and often used option. Especially since the prestige of the name would increase over time.  That's mostly how you get crazy long ruling periods like with the Bagrationi dynasty of Georgia which also can be said to have ruled the country this way for about 1000 years before being deposed (they still exist though). 

[Interdimensional Observer]

13 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

I think fantasy stories greatly exaggerated the realistic longevity of dynasties. Even in the case of Japan, the actual control of the country has shifted between several different factions and families. Sure the imperial line in Japan continues on but that's because the institution only has as much power as the ruling faction allows it to.

 

True, even since the Kamakura Shogunate (mid-1100s it beings IIRC), the Emperor has been just a figurehead often consulted, but leaving the real duties to the bureaucracy of others. And even before that in the Heian period, the imperial regents often had real power- namely Fujiwara no Michinaga, not to say in some instances the Emperors weren't exerting direct political power.

As for things other than the Japanese Emperors... 

• The Romanovs of Russia made it just barely to 300 and then went to the Bolshevik firing squad.
• The Habsburgs rule the Holy Roman Empire/Habsburg Empire/Austro-Hungarian Empire with some serious interruptions and declines from 1440 to 1918, almost 500 years.
• If you count the Normans from William to the end of the Plantagenets and the start of the Tudors as one, you get over 300 years, but there is good reason to question this.
• If you break as one should France's Capetians into Capet, Valois, and Bourbon, the Capets have just less than 350 years. 
• The Roman Empire of Antiquity barely had dynasties, the succession issue was horrendous and often extremely bloody.
• In China, if you ignore the first three dynasties, which aren't so well documented being so ancient, the Han Dynasty ruled for the longest at just about 400 years. And that 400 includes the Three Kingdoms collapse before Cao Pi overthrows the already ineffectual Emperor.
• The Tokugawa Shogunate/Bakufu lasts for ~260 years.
• Korea's Choson is the longest lived in East Asia that I'm aware of, lasting in its little kingdom for over 500 years.
• Ancient Egypt's Ptolemaic dynasty rules for just short of 300 years.
• Persia's great Achaemenids are 220 years.
• Technically, the Abbasids rule throughout the Middle East from 720 to 1258, but they had lost effective power over much of it in I believe the late 900s. 
• The Ottoman Empire lasted in Turkey for over 600 years, less if you exclude everything before the taking of Constantinople/Istanbul. And this includes the decline and a great deal of fratricide through much of its history. Which undermines the idea of a peacefully enduring dynasty- this one continually changed, just by internal purging.
• Monaco has had the same dynasty since 1297- but that is a single town you can drive through in a half hour.
• Not sure about India's Cholas, but the Mauryans is less than 200 and the Gupta had 250.

So at most, you're looking at 500 maybe 600 years, Alm and Marth have double the most optimistic realistic number. Which is pretty massive IRL.

 

Although I think this begs the question- what defines a "dynasty"? A dynasty is not a kingdom/empire, since a kingdom can remain culturally and geopolitically similar with different ruling dynasties- see Rome. A dynasty is not a lineage- a lineage need not have political power. What between these things forms a dynasty? A lineage ruling a political unit? A great dynasty rules a great territory, this sounds reasonable. But I would add a dynasty must rule the same/consistent territory- Queen Elizabeth II being descended from Charlamagne would not mean the Carolingian Dynasty is still alive. The lineage, but not the dynasty. So what constitutes a significant break in a lineage for a new dynasty be considered? Is it purely whether the defined rules of succession are followed?

Edited February 21, 2019 by Interdimensional Observer

[omegaxis1]

13 hours ago, NekoKnight said:

I think fantasy stories greatly exaggerated the realistic longevity of dynasties. Even in the case of Japan, the actual control of the country has shifted between several different factions and families. Sure the imperial line in Japan continues on but that's because the institution only has as much power as the ruling faction allows it to.

It probably just sounds cooler to say "Marth started a dynasty that lasted a thousand years" than " it lasted few hundred years before their influence waned and another rival power we know very little about overthrew them and started another dynasty."

All that said, Fire Emblem especially has a fondness for holy bloodlines, chosen ones and a highly romanticized look at feudalism so maybe they can get away with saying that a family is so special that no one ever questions or threatens their authority for hundreds of years.

Indeed. It makes for a good narrative structure of a kingdom lasting for this many years before it feels like a badass and legendary feat. 

Though in the case of Fire Emblem, it should be noted that unlike real life where things are more make-belief, this is a world of real magic and entities of great power being worshipped as gods. It especially helps when the legendary weapons are of great power.

[Zhilai]

1 hour ago, omegaxis1 said:

Indeed. It makes for a good narrative structure of a kingdom lasting for this many years before it feels like a badass and legendary feat. 

Though in the case of Fire Emblem, it should be noted that unlike real life where things are more make-belief, this is a world of real magic and entities of great power being worshipped as gods. It especially helps when the legendary weapons are of great power.

The crests might be to blame for that. If succession can be secured with magic crests, then as long as the ruling dynasty doesn’t get overthrown long lasting periods of rule are easier.

[NekoKnight]

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Although I think this begs the question- what defines a "dynasty"? A dynasty is not a kingdom/empire, since a kingdom can remain culturally and geopolitically similar with different ruling dynasties- see Rome. A dynasty is not a lineage- a lineage need not have political power. What between these things forms a dynasty? A lineage ruling a political unit? A great dynasty rules a great territory, this sounds reasonable. But I would add a dynasty must rule the same/consistent territory- Queen Elizabeth II being descended from Charlamagne would not mean the Carolingian Dynasty is still alive. The lineage, but not the dynasty. So what constitutes a significant break in a lineage for a new dynasty be considered? Is it purely whether the defined rules of succession are followed?

All very good questions of which I have few answers to. Often a dynasty change can be clearly marked through major policy changes or a different ethnic group taking over but it's not always that simple.

I would think that the larger a territory, such as say, an empire spanning a third of the continent, the more likely a state ruled by a single dynasty will collapse and change. More land means more distance for soldiers to travel  and more people of different groups and interests. Perhaps magic/crests/other fantastic elements allow greater unity and control in a large nation comparable to modern times. That said, we still have yet to see what is commonly interpreted as a 1000 year dynasty in real life and we don't know much about the geography, history and ethnic groups of the Adrestian Empire.

[GriffinKnight]

On 2/21/2019 at 11:43 AM, Interdimensional Observer said:

 

Although I think this begs the question- what defines a "dynasty"? A dynasty is not a kingdom/empire, since a kingdom can remain culturally and geopolitically similar with different ruling dynasties- see Rome. A dynasty is not a lineage- a lineage need not have political power. What between these things forms a dynasty? A lineage ruling a political unit? A great dynasty rules a great territory, this sounds reasonable. But I would add a dynasty must rule the same/consistent territory- Queen Elizabeth II being descended from Charlamagne would not mean the Carolingian Dynasty is still alive. The lineage, but not the dynasty. So what constitutes a significant break in a lineage for a new dynasty be considered? Is it purely whether the defined rules of succession are followed?

Usually, a new dynasty is founded through war. However, this is not always the case. It also happens through marriage, but not marriage of the immediate family to outside houses, becuase marrying your sister to the duke of some random place, would normally incorporate the husbands name/title to her own if her children inherited the kingdom, like the house of Habsburg after Maria Theresa became the house of Habsburg-Lorraine, with all Hapsburg's now being descended from this house. But this is just a branch of the family, not really an end to the line completely, just it morphing into something new. When a truly new dynasty is founded, is when you have a very distant relative inherit the throne. Such as with the passing of the throne from the Stuarts to the house of Hanover, when Queen Anne died childless, the English government chose a distant Protestant relative of the royal family, being, as I recall, 2 maybe 3 generations removed from the main Stuart line, thus the didn't take the Stuart name, not that they would/probably even could as they were branched from the granddaughter of a previous king,James I. So I think that a new dynasty starts when it is related to the old dynasty, but is far enough removed from the old dynasty that they feel no loyalty to the name of the former monarchs. 

Though there has also been in history people who just change their family names because of... some reason or another. This is most prevalent in Japan,(that I could tell anyway)the best Examples being Tokugawa Ieyasu and Toyotomi Hideyoshi. Ieyasu was once called Matsudaira Takechiyo, only changing his name after claiming descent from some other legendary figure, and Hideyoshi changed his name multiple times, for no other reason than he felt that when he got more prestige, he should get more prestigious sounding names. So I have no idea if the Hraesvelgr name is new or not, but I assume not, as they hold a crest, so I don't think they changed it willy-nilly. But who knows, they could be a branch from the original imperial line, I suppose we will have to wait for the game to get a clearer picture. I just hope that we get something like the glossary/index from Radiant Dawn, because it actually had some decent information in it, and this game looks like it could have a lot of history in it, so a glossary/index would not go amiss, also it's a school, the glossary/index would make a lot of thematic sense to have... just saying.