What do you think of the two main figures of the war? (Spoilers)

[Eltoshen]

Quote

Judging by her actions in all 4 routes, she seems driven to start the war over her own personal grudge with Crests than like actually for the betterment of society.

I disagree with this statement. Just because she has a grievance with Crests doesn't mean that she isn't fighting the crest system for a reason. 

But fairly noted that she didn't come out with the truth from the start. Another situation where she's very similar to Rhea. I also just remembered that Edelgard had 10 siblings, 8 older and 2 younger who died due to experimentation with Crests (both of them had their families torn apart).

However, I'm pretty sure Edelgard knew from the start that there was no way she was going to be able to get Rhea to just step down and reveal the truth about the Crest system willingly when she's aware of how long Rhea's been in power. We have to remember that Edelgard has the most knowledge about the Church when it comes to the 3 different lords, thanks to Tomas and TWSID, albeit some of it tainted.

So if you're going to argue that fighting violence with violence is the answer. Why not fight deception with deception? What right does Rhea have to get mad?

Also, in the Ashe/Catherine paralogue, she explicitly is going there to pass judgment, so to not expect the Western Church to respond in kind would make no sense.

Edited September 9, 2019 by Eltoshen

[DefyingFates]

15 minutes ago, Eltoshen said:

Another situation where she's very similar to Rhea.

I thought it was quite interesting that the two were quick to call the other a monster yet still resorted to similar tactics when their backs were against the wall (Rhea sets Fhirdiad on fire with the citizens inside at the end of CF while Edelgard doesn't evacuate Enbarr in VW, using her own citizens as a buffer to slow Claude's army). It was a nice example of how war brings out the worst in people and - as you say - how the two are more alike than I suspect either would like to admit.

15 minutes ago, Eltoshen said:

she explicitly is going there to pass judgment, so to not expect the Western Church to respond in kind would make no sense.

While I also think that Rhea only attacks when attacked, I have to agree her ruthlessness when she does take action is quite alarming and part of the reason it's difficult to get a read on her the first time you see events unfold. I still think she means well though, it's just that her method of dealing with danger to her Church/ people is all kinds of extreme (which is pointed out by all three Lords).

Edited September 9, 2019 by DefyingFates

[PrincessAlyson]

5 hours ago, DefyingFates said:

Long post may be long, but great post is still great. Thank you so much!

I love your dissection of Rhea especially - you really can't help but sympathise with her once you realise what she's been through and in Silver Snow she even starts to blame herself for the war. And it's only once you see it written out that it really hits you that Rhea watched Edelgard try to steal, you know, the remains of her family. Of course she overreacts!

Honestly, I love the moral dichotomy in this story and that it prompts analyses like this. Thanks again for the write up and for liking this thread!

Thanks! This game has so many good points that it's really one of the better FE games. I'm quite addicted to it. Most of the characters in general are well written and feel like real people. That's what I like to see in a game!

[Dark Holy Elf]

I think Edelgard is... questionable but I lean towards her being right. She could have been far more right if she'd been able to trust people and come to a more peaceful solution. The short-term suffering she causes is clear and I will not diminish it, but the long-term gain is there and real.

I sympathise with Rhea and I think she's a well-written character but I think she's very much a negative influence on Fodlan. It is not a happy place and the place where her influence runs strongest (Faerghus) is also the most messed up, and she isn't interested in any sort of progress for Fodlan that would make it less messed up. She's kind-hearted (unless challenged) but not a good ruler.

The game is much better for both of them. How good is it that this is our core conflict instead of (with all due respect to Awakening) something like Chrom vs. Validar? I love it.

[Book Bro]

I think they're both characters with good intentions that do some bad things.

But Rhea had absolute power for centuries and used it to create a miserable world that only has peace because she has an army of zealots ready to kill anyone who questions her, no questions asked. We see this in Part 1 no matter the house. Crests are responsible for the cycle of suffering in Fódlan, and while she may not have created them she certainly is responsible for their role in the present. And while I sympathize with Rhea's backstory, her actions are ultimately selfish. 

When Edelgard wins, she uses the same absolute power Rhea had before her to create a system where everyone has more equal opportunities, do away with class distinction, and gives it up to a chosen heir once this is all established. She leaves the world better and doesn't  restructure society to make it all about her, which is what Rhea did. Even in routes not her own, it's because of her war that Rhea is forced to confront her failings in the first place. 

I love them both. Great characters. 

[Julian Solo]

7 hours ago, Eltoshen said:

I disagree with this statement. Just because she has a grievance with Crests doesn't mean that she isn't fighting the crest system for a reason. 

But fairly noted that she didn't come out with the truth from the start. Another situation where she's very similar to Rhea. I also just remembered that Edelgard had 10 siblings, 8 older and 2 younger who died due to experimentation with Crests (both of them had their families torn apart).

However, I'm pretty sure Edelgard knew from the start that there was no way she was going to be able to get Rhea to just step down and reveal the truth about the Crest system willingly when she's aware of how long Rhea's been in power. We have to remember that Edelgard has the most knowledge about the Church when it comes to the 3 different lords, thanks to Tomas and TWSID, albeit some of it tainted.

So if you're going to argue that fighting violence with violence is the answer. Why not fight deception with deception? What right does Rhea have to get mad?

Also, in the Ashe/Catherine paralogue, she explicitly is going there to pass judgment, so to not expect the Western Church to respond in kind would make no sense.

Byleth, Dimitri and Cluade do get her to step down and chance her closed border policy on all routes she lives.

[Julian Solo]

1 hour ago, Book Bro said:

I think they're both characters with good intentions that do some bad things.

But Rhea had absolute power for centuries and used it to create a miserable world that only has peace because she has an army of zealots ready to kill anyone who questions her, no questions asked. We see this in Part 1 no matter the house. Crests are responsible for the cycle of suffering in Fódlan, and while she may not have created them she certainly is responsible for their role in the present. And while I sympathize with Rhea's backstory, her actions are ultimately selfish. 

When Edelgard wins, she uses the same absolute power Rhea had before her to create a system where everyone has more equal opportunities, do away with class distinction, and gives it up to a chosen heir once this is all established. She leaves the world better and doesn't  restructure society to make it all about her, which is what Rhea did. Even in routes not her own, it's because of her war that Rhea is forced to confront her failings in the first place. 

I love them both. Great characters. 

Umm what? She didn't she let humans rule themselves. She never once made society about her. She never once in all routes had power over all humanity. She had no hand in spreading of crests besides the empire royal family crest and her knights. All nobles have power because there rich not just crests this is proven by Ingrid family. She never killed anyone that questioned her she only killed people that tried to kill her and only Catherine is a zealot. Shamir and Cyril are atheist.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Julian Solo
Sorry for double posting I don't know how that happened =/

[Arachnofiend]

2 hours ago, Julian Solo said:

Umm what? She didn't she let humans rule themselves. She never once made society about her. She never once in all routes had power over all humanity. She had no hand in spreading of crests besides the empire royal family crest and her knights. All nobles have power because there rich not just crests this is proven by Ingrid family. She never killed anyone that questioned her she only killed people that tried to kill her and only Catherine is a zealot. Shamir and Cyril are atheist.

Did you not read the library archives? It's made abundantly clear that the church is the organization that really controls Fodlan. Her control is subtle but inescapable.

Anyways Edelgard is right because she's the only one who's plan doesn't end in Fodlan being united under an authoritarian god-king

[Hardric62]

9 hours ago, Eltoshen said:

We have to remember that Edelgard has the most knowledge about the Church when it comes to the 3 different lords, thanks to Tomas and TWSID, albeit some of it tainted.

 

Euh, is it sure that knowledge comes from the Agarthans? I mean, Edelgard's big problem is trust issues, everyone agrees with that... So why exactly everyone thinks that these issues disappear just long enough for her to trust the Agarthans about intel they could be telling, when they are the ones who butchered her siblings and were responsible for her second Crest? I mean, she is very much in a 'enemy of my enemy, kill the stronger one first, then shank the weaker one', when is such mindset conductive to believe these guys' stories?

 

Ultimately though, I think Edelgard is right. Rhea meant well, but went pretty wrong about her goals (shame such vote option isn't available), and wasn't listening to anybody telling her so even when the whole system was crumbling around her (Dimitri and Kingodm nobles keep saying the pre-timeskip Faerghus is a rotten husk, the Alliance doesn't look much better from the Paralogues happening here, and the Empire... Well, Insurrection of the Seven). She would only step down for Mama Sothis, and the events around Byleth were too much of a perfect storm to be considered as a viable alternative to wait for for some people.

 

And for the people saying 'but, next generation'... Remember Dimitri and Edelgard's fathers were trying to reform their countries... And then Tragedy of Duscur plus Insurrection of the Seven. There are enough corrupt nobles around for the Agarthans to keep rocking the boat until war happens.

[Book Bro]

7 hours ago, Julian Solo said:

Umm what? She didn't she let humans rule themselves. She never once made society about her. She never once in all routes had power over all humanity. She had no hand in spreading of crests besides the empire royal family crest and her knights. All nobles have power because there rich not just crests this is proven by Ingrid family. She never killed anyone that questioned her she only killed people that tried to kill her and only Catherine is a zealot. Shamir and Cyril are atheist.

Huge Rhea spoilers below:

She let humans rule Fódlan if they worship Seiros and Sothis, aka her and her mother. It's said that the nobility generally follows the church of Seiros, and why wouldn't they when their noble status is entirely based on Crests "granted by the goddess"? Rhea constructed a religion she's at the centre of, even if people don't know she's Seiros, she's still the archbishop and ultimate authority. The ruling class still depends on her.

While it's true Shamir is more level headed, I don't know about Cyril. Even if he doesnt follow the religion of Seiros, he's obsessed with Rhea and it's telling that he stands beside Catherine in the Crimson Flower endgame even after Rhea burns the city. 

[axlorg89]

Seems neck to neck in here. I have yet to play Church route but I'm personally of the opinion that Edelgard meant well, but at the cost of a lot. The way she selfishly pursues her ideas without chance for diplomacy is why going through her route was hard for me. As for Rhea, I personally do like her. She's calming and terrifying at a drop a hat. I started with the belief that, while she did propagate history, it wasn't for bad intentions. That said, she's unfit to be a ruler since the crest nobility system does actively hurt society in the long run. I do like her, but definitely don't think she's fit to lead. I used to get behind her but not anymore. For Edelgard, I do think she would be fit to lead if she were compromising, but I can't get behind her since she won't.

[Julian Solo]

9 hours ago, Arachnofiend said:

Did you not read the library archives? It's made abundantly clear that the church is the organization that really controls Fodlan. Her control is subtle but inescapable.

Anyways Edelgard is right because she's the only one who's plan doesn't end in Fodlan being united under an authoritarian god-king

Some of the lords we learn in GD are religious conservatives yeah but not all of them. Hell the Empire been conquering neightboring nations. Which Seiros is against having to do with anyone off the continent. The knights are powerful yeah and she helped found the countries in Fodlan, but she never once actively controls anyone. She doesn't harm anyone who didn't betray her in the story. Hell she didn't even punish Jeralt. 

Edelgard plan literally gives 100% power to the emperor by the stealing all power from the other nations and lessing the nobilitys power. Plus completely replacing the church with a powerless tool under the empires control. 

@Book Bro That's not necessarily true. Byleth is still considered a commoner even after being revealed to having a crest. Several noble families have lost crests. Ingrid has one but her families loosing power and influence because there broke. Even without crests the rich still rule Fodlan and the rest of the world anyway.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Julian Solo

[Arachnofiend]

2 hours ago, Julian Solo said:

Edelgard plan literally gives 100% power to the emperor by the stealing all power from the other nations and lessing the nobilitys power. Plus completely replacing the church with a powerless tool under the empires control.

Edelgard's plan involves her retiring and not passing her authority down to her children. The Empire as an authoritarian system is dissolved and replaced by a civil government that anyone can participate in regardless of the circumstances of her birth. Bit of a step up in terms of following modern values over "the divine right of kings is good actually" that you get in the other routes. The closest you get to a route that is as positive for Fodlan as Crimson Flower is Verdant Wind since at least Claude's route also actually addresses the systemic issues in Fodlan's hierarchy. Dimitri sure as hell can't say that.

[Julian Solo]

1 minute ago, Arachnofiend said:

Edelgard's plan involves her retiring and not passing her authority down to her children. The Empire as an authoritarian system is dissolved and replaced by a civil government that anyone can participate in regardless of the circumstances of her birth. Bit of a step up in terms of following modern values over "the divine right of kings is good actually" that you get in the other routes. The closest you get to a route that is as positive for Fodlan as Crimson Flower is Verdant Wind since at least Claude's route also actually addresses the systemic issues in Fodlan's hierarchy. Dimitri sure as hell can't say that.

Complete bs Edelgard steps down and replaces herself with a new Emperor and creates a society where the strong and smart rise and the weak stay the same. Cluade spreads religious Theocracy and leaves to go back Amayria. Dimitri allows every single person no matter if your weak or strong to have a say in government. He also leaves the reformed church under Byleth to litterally counter his supreme power. No other of the leaders do that even Byleth. 

[timon]

10 minutes ago, Arachnofiend said:

Edelgard's plan involves her retiring and not passing her authority down to her children. The Empire as an authoritarian system is dissolved and replaced by a civil government that anyone can participate in regardless of the circumstances of her birth. Bit of a step up in terms of following modern values over "the divine right of kings is good actually" that you get in the other routes. The closest you get to a route that is as positive for Fodlan as Crimson Flower is Verdant Wind since at least Claude's route also actually addresses the systemic issues in Fodlan's hierarchy. Dimitri sure as hell can't say that.

 

4 minutes ago, Julian Solo said:

Complete bs Edelgard steps down and replaces herself with a new Emperor and creates a society where the strong and smart rise and the weak stay the same. Cluade spreads religious Theocracy and leaves to go back Amayria. Dimitri allows every single person no matter if your weak or strong to have a say in government. He also leaves the reformed church under Byleth to litterally counter his supreme power. No other of the leaders do that even Byleth. 

Mate that's literally what he said. Edelgard's government is the only one that truly ignores nobility. I don't remember Dimitri ever stating that the place of king will be taken on election or that he'll take power away from the nobles or whatever. As far as I know Gautier and Fraldarius keep their noble privileges and the commoners stay commoner.

What Edelgard creates (after she leaves her position) is a pure meritocracy, which has some flaws, but birth right is surely not one of them. I don't see how "strong and smart at the top" is a bad thing, much better than being at the top 'cause your father had a lot of money.

So yeah, she's the only one who gives Fòdlan a truly progressed form of government. She's a revolutionary after all, it's what you'd expect.

[Fabulously Olivier]

I don't think any of the options truly describe how I feel.

 

Edelgard

I absolutely, 100% love her and support her intentions. I think her goals are admirable. It's her methodology that is perhaps concerning. I personally understand the logistical limitations that may have forced her down her covert and aggressive path towards Dimitri and Claude, but it's hard not to criticize them all the same.

 

Rhea

I empathize with her loss, and she has some admirable character traits (ie: her attempts to limit systemic racial discrimination are to be commended). However, my sympathy for her ends there, and I definitely feel that she is more is the morally gray anti-villain to Edelgard's morally gray anti-hero.

[Julian Solo]

2 hours ago, timon said:

 

Mate that's literally what he said. Edelgard's government is the only one that truly ignores nobility. I don't remember Dimitri ever stating that the place of king will be taken on election or that he'll take power away from the nobles or whatever. As far as I know Gautier and Fraldarius keep their noble privileges and the commoners stay commoner.

What Edelgard creates (after she leaves her position) is a pure meritocracy, which has some flaws, but birth right is surely not one of them. I don't see how "strong and smart at the top" is a bad thing, much better than being at the top 'cause your father had a lot of money.

So yeah, she's the only one who gives Fòdlan a truly progressed form of government. She's a revolutionary after all, it's what you'd expect.

She litterally took away the checks and balances in society and created one where the weak die. How is an average person supposed to live in such a system? Or say someone with mental health issues like Dimitri they can't. She didn't take the nobility system away fully there still active after her revolution just weaker. Her one goverment system is completely flawed. Potentially even more so then pre war. As she has to find some random saint that won't completely go insane with absolute power.

Know compared to Dimitri who actively let the commoners have a say in his government no matter who they are. Plus let Byleth reform the faith and let her/him actively disagree with him as the king keeping the monarch in line plus the goverment. Dimitri sounds way more progressive.

 

 

[Dark Holy Elf]

Hopefully we can all agree that the system of government where Byleth becomes an immortal god-queen/king to replace Rhea is the worst.

[Timlugia]

2 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Hopefully we can all agree that the system of government where Byleth becomes an immortal god-queen/king to replace Rhea is the worst.

Well, in Byleth's ending peace, progression and stability are guaranteed for at least a few hundred years as long as he/she rules, that alone could be very attractive to many compared to Edelgard's ending, which the future of Fodlan is completely uncertain after her time:

Empire could last another 1000 years in peace, or it could breakup as soon as she abdicates, like after Alexander or Nero as every general/governor thought they were the only worthy ones.

Edited September 11, 2019 by Timlugia

[genagi]

11 hours ago, timon said:

 

Mate that's literally what he said. Edelgard's government is the only one that truly ignores nobility. I don't remember Dimitri ever stating that the place of king will be taken on election or that he'll take power away from the nobles or whatever. As far as I know Gautier and Fraldarius keep their noble privileges and the commoners stay commoner.

What Edelgard creates (after she leaves her position) is a pure meritocracy, which has some flaws, but birth right is surely not one of them. I don't see how "strong and smart at the top" is a bad thing, much better than being at the top 'cause your father had a lot of money.

So yeah, she's the only one who gives Fòdlan a truly progressed form of government. She's a revolutionary after all, it's what you'd expect.

Because there is no pure meritocracy on the earth, now and ever. None of today's society is a meritocracy. Therefore her ideal is just too naive to be treated seriously. Increasing class mobility, social equality and promoting the education is good; trying to create a utopia which never exist in human history is lunatic. Trying to create a utopia where 'class does not exist, no aristocracy, no religion, one powerful leader who passes her position to the person she believes is worthy' is terrible and I can't help but find it is unnervingly dangerous and horrible. I hope it can remind people of some familiar examples in the history.

And, in reality, let's just assume that you have as much power as Edel's, you cannot pick up the most 'progressive' form of government and most attractive political ideal (”based on their merits!”) you have listened then decided to imposing them on the land you ruled and ”giving” your people the best form of government, and enforcing them on other states as well by invading your neighbours. It won't work and it will never work because political and social structures are complicated. Again, does that sound familiar? In politics, 'How to achieve it' is a way more important question than what is the best, and we never know how Edel achieve a utopian society which does not exist in human history when the society is based in the medieval world and the economics relies on agriculture and land, about 80％ population are peasants, extremely low literacy rate, no modern technology, no modern transport methods, no modern trading system and business group. Smart Reforming policy and proper investment and encouragement on society is appreciated and welcomed; an emperor who thought she can change that situation once and for all through war is not.

And a little detail from GD route: a merchant will tell you that they are happy under the alliance's reign rather than empire because alliance has a more open and free policy on trade and business.

So yes I think Edel means well but she is absolutely wrong and can cause huge disaster in reality if someone like her helds power.

And, despite everything, the nobility does NOT disappear in Edel's ending.
'When Bernadetta inherited House Varley from her father,' in Bernadetta's paired ending with her

'Edelgard, the new Adrestian emperor, appointed Caspar as her Minister of Military Affairs'

'Hubert and Ferdinand became the left and right hands of Emperor Edelgard,' 'Minister of the Imperial Household, ....and the prime minister'

So seems like the important roles in the government is happened to be taken by those who comes from the former powerful houses, who are also Edel's classmates, and help her to win the war. That's absolutely what a meritocracy should like, right?
The emperor even married her prime minister Ferdinand 'who had assumed his inherited position as Duke Aegir' in their paired ending. It is cute, but it is also just tell you that all the reformation thing is more or less a joke and the writer does not put some serious thinking into it.

12 hours ago, Arachnofiend said:

Edelgard's plan involves her retiring and not passing her authority down to her children. The Empire as an authoritarian system is dissolved and replaced by a civil government that anyone can participate in regardless of the circumstances of her birth. Bit of a step up in terms of following modern values over "the divine right of kings is good actually" that you get in the other routes. The closest you get to a route that is as positive for Fodlan as Crimson Flower is Verdant Wind since at least Claude's route also actually addresses the systemic issues in Fodlan's hierarchy. Dimitri sure as hell can't say that.

Yeah she does not pass it to her children but passes it to a 'worthy' successor (based on her judgment obviously). And the whole “empire is dissolved” thing... I am sorry there is no evidence in the game indicating that. I can as well as imagine that after she dies everything ends up in disaster.

Although I don't buy any of these three individual endings and find all of them quite absurd, I think it might be helpful to people who want to discuss which is the best or 'progress ive' future for Fodlan. So I post them here.

”As the new Adrestian emperor, Edelgard dedicated her life to reshaping the delicate political structure of Fódlan.With tireless work and great sacrifice, she reformed the class system to ensure a free and independent society for all. In her later years, she entrusted her life's work to a worthy successor before finally vanishing from the public eye.

After his coronation, Dimitri spent his life reforming and ruling justly over Fódlan. He focused particularly on improving living situations for orphans and improving foreign relations. He was known for listening intently to the voices of all, and for instituting a new form of government in which the people were free to be active participants. He lived for his people and alongside them, and was thusly dubbed the Savior King.

Claude returned to his homeland of Almyra and assumed the role of a politically active prince. After inheriting the throne, he worked to improve relations with Fódlan. In addition to establishing new trade routes, he fostered trust by sending reinforcements into Fódlan to help quell revolts by the remnants of the Imperial loyalists. Under his guidance, the peoples of Fódlan and Almyra were finally able to set aside age-old prejudices, and over time, the fallacies of old were all but forgotten."

[Humanoid]

Premature abdication has been an ongoing problem in Fire Emblem all the way back to Archanea, rulers do it at the drop of a hat. Oftentimes it feels like a lazy way to tie up all the loose strings using a single sentence in an epilogue.

[Hardric62]

18 minutes ago, genagi said:

And a little detail from GD route: a merchant will tell you that they are happy under the alliance's reign rather than empire because alliance has a more open and free policy on trade and business.

 

Well, that's funny you should say that, because Crimson Flower also tells that Edelgard has begun reforms in order to remove the bindings Imperial nobility had on trade. Further, supports in CF includes discussion about things like 'universal education' to make the society as she imagines it more likely to work (and use of examination as a social vector was a thing in Ancient China, for instance).

 

As for nobility staying in place, I do imagine this is more of a transitional thing, there is no real choice but chosing amongst former elites until the new ones are ready to take over, and well, as long as the members of these old elites are able of doing the job (For instance, I am not exactly expecting Acheron to keep the job for that long after the end of CF, he may earn himself the right to prove he can keeps his title, but beyond that)...

 

19 minutes ago, genagi said:

Yeah she does not pass it to her children but passes it to a 'worthy' successor (based on her judgment obviously). And the whole “empire is dissolved” thing... I am sorry there is no evidence in the game indicating that. I can as well as imagine that after she dies everything ends up in disaster.

 

Euh, you ever heard about a thing called the Antonine Dynasty? Generally the best succession of emperors Rome ever had, and the whole way succession worked here was the emperor adopting himself a successor, aka doing what Edelgard is doing. And before you mention that the whole thing crashed down, I'll point out it crashed with Commodus, aka Marc Aurele's son, the only person of that dynasty chosen only for heredity.

[Eltoshen]

On 9/10/2019 at 6:07 AM, Julian Solo said:

Byleth, Dimitri and Cluade do get her to step down and chance her closed border policy on all routes she lives.

None of them would have even had the opportunity to do so if edelgard didn't start a war to free the continent from the Church's rule. Also, they don't get her to step down. All I remember from the ending is that Rhea is too weak to govern any longer and she chooses to step aside. Doesn't change the fact that the Church still holds power.

[Flere210]

8 minutes ago, Eltoshen said:

None of them would have even had the opportunity to do so if edelgard didn't start a war to free the continent from the Church's rule. Also, they don't get her to step down. All I remember from the ending is that Rhea is too weak to govern any longer and she chooses to step aside. Doesn't change the fact that the Church still holds power.

No opportunity is really required. For Rhea to step down 3 things are required.

1) that she find out about Byleth(a mysterious mercenary that happens to be the child of Jeralt? Is a borderline plothole that she haven't find him before.)

2) that Byleth goes super sayan. Edelgard is barely involved with that event because the slithers acted independently.

3) that Rhea recognize Byleth as being one whit Sothis. Too bad Edelgard attacked before she could realize why nothing was happening when Byleth sat on the throne.

Rhea does not give a flying fuck about being god emperor of humankind, she want to reincarnate Sothis and once she find out that she succeed whit Byleth she has no reason to stay Archbishop. No war is required to dethrone her whatsoever. And if byketh kept gathering fame as the Ashen Demon eventually Rhea would understand who they are.

 

[genagi]

54 minutes ago, Hardric62 said:

 

Well, that's funny you should say that, because Crimson Flower also tells that Edelgard has begun reforms in order to remove the bindings Imperial nobility had on trade. Further, supports in CF includes discussion about things like 'universal education' to make the society as she imagines it more likely to work (and use of examination as a social vector was a thing in Ancient China, for instance).

 

As for nobility staying in place, I do imagine this is more of a transitional thing, there is no real choice but chosing amongst former elites until the new ones are ready to take over, and well, as long as the members of these old elites are able of doing the job (For instance, I am not exactly expecting Acheron to keep the job for that long after the end of CF, he may earn himself the right to prove he can keeps his title, but beyond that)...

 

 

Euh, you ever heard about a thing called the Antonine Dynasty? Generally the best succession of emperors Rome ever had, and the whole way succession worked here was the emperor adopting himself a successor, aka doing what Edelgard is doing. And before you mention that the whole thing crashed down, I'll point out it crashed with Commodus, aka Marc Aurele's son, the only person of that dynasty chosen only for heredity.

I don't think you understand my main argument and I am sorry if I explain it badly.

1, Her ideal, if it is really what people sum up above (”to create a horizontal meritocratic society without class, religion and aristocracy”) is naive, unrealistic and a fantasy in a medieval world and has little if not zero chance to succeed because it doesn't cater with the social development. What's matter is not what a political ideal is progressive or not but the actual methods and boring practical detail and 'minor' things. Could someone explain how Edel makes her majority population, i.e. the peasants to 'rise up according to their merits'. Please inform me if there any MERITOCRATIC society on a certain scale without religion, aristocracy and any social distinction and stratification in the medieval world which is created through a 5-years war(or the later reformation which the game literally skip in one line and provide no information on how she actually does her reformation) . And she called her behaviour ”free human beings from oppression”…which is good propaganda if you ask me. 

So if you disagree me on that point, you could persuade me that her ideal is practical or realistic.

However, I might sum up her aim wrongly. Maybe she just wants to weak the power of aristocrats and church within the empire, promote public education, reform bureaucratic system, make laws which enable class mobility more. I have no question to these aim, but still the fact that she talks about "freeing human beings" "let the strong rise" and meritocracy all the time is confusing. And how she found that eliminating church and annexing two other countries is the easiest approach to achieve her aim is beyond my understanding. And what exactly is the 'class reformation' she is doing at her end? Confiscating all autocrats' land and giving them off to people averagely? Confiscating all the autocratic's and merchant's wealth and arranging an exam, distributing these according to people's score in the exam?

For your last argument, I am arguing that 'Empire will dissolve and a civil government will replace it' has no evidence in the game to back it up. I am not trying to prove what will happen after Edel ends her reign. No one knows what will happen in the future because information people need to make a solid prediction lacks in the game. I am definitely not trying to discuss whether Edel's successor choice is wise or not, because we don't even know that person's name, not to mention the specific social environment and foreign relations of the empire at that time.